Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

CONTINTENCIES FUND 1994–95

Ordered,
That there be laid before this House a Return of Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1994–95, showing:
(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1995.
(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Wood.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Professional Football

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many professional football clubs she or Ministers in her Department have visited over the past 12 months to discuss the viability of professional football. [21892]

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the governing bodies, and with

many other groups and individuals involved in football, to discuss matters of concern to football and have visited both professional and amateur football grounds.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the remarkable success story of Southend United football club which, in co-operation with local authorities, has provided remarkable services to Southend's young people, but which, like other clubs, has a problem finding an alternative site for a massive redevelopment? I appreciate the enormous burdens on the Minister's time, but might it be possible for him to visit the successful Southend United football club and, in establishing priorities, to bear it in mind that, when I became the Member of Parliament, Southend United was at the foot of the fourth division and is now, happily, near the top of the first division and likely to go higher?

Mr. Sproat: I am aware that Southend United is seventh in the first division and that it has a splendid record in liaising with schools, as the document "Raising the Game" hoped would happen. Southend's liaison with schools is a model for many clubs. On Southend United's moving or relocating, I read in a newspaper about possible relocation to Fossets farm. I would be happy to learn more about that from my hon. Friend, either here or in Southend.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister consider the effect on professional football's finances of the huge disparity between the money available to the premier league, because of its television contracts, and the money available to the Endsleigh league's first, second and third divisions? The effect is that, generally speaking, it is much more profitable for a player to play, for example, for the second team of a premier league club than for the first team of an Endsleigh league first division club. It also means that, when clubs are promoted from the Endsleigh league first division, they always run the risk of being


rapidly relegated because they simply do not have the finances of premier league clubs. Is not that distorting the whole game? Is it not time that that was examined?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises an important problem, but the tremendous increase in income to football clubs through television sports rights has affected matters dramatically in both the premier league and other leagues. The Football League has recently negotiated a contract worth about £125 million over the next four or five years. I hope that that will make a difference to the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that we ensure that school fields are available for school children who, in future, become interested in sports, including football? Does he further agree that it is important to condemn left-wing local authorities that have continued to seek to ban or to discourage competitive sports, and that we will see splendid successes, such as that being shown by Blackpool football club, currently top of division two after a splendid 1-0 win over Brentford on Saturday, only if plenty of school children have the opportunity to participate in football and other sports at school?

Mr. Sproat: On football and schools, I congratulate the football authorities on what they have done. Since we produced "Raising the Game" on 14 July, no other sport has done more to encourage sport in schools. For example, the Football League, Sportsmatch and Auto Windscreens have a new six-a-side competition in secondary schools and Coca-Cola has sponsored the schoolboy European championships. We have consulted on the fact that the Sports Council should be consulted before any school playing fields are sold. I agree with my hon. Friend, therefore, that much has to be done and that much has been done.

Mr. Pendry: Had the Minister visited more football clubs, he would know of the many concerns facing professional football. As one who has visited more clubs, may I assist him by asking him to take on board some of those concerns as addressed in our charter for football—which, as he knows, has been universally well received by the football world? One such concern is about a lack of co-operation between his Department and the Department of the Environment. The Minister really must get tougher with that Department and insist that planning policy must work in favour of relocation rather than against it.
Will the Minister also deal with the real problem of losses to pools companies as a result of the national lottery's impact, which is a major factor in the inability of some league clubs to meet the demands of the Taylor report? As I have accepted today an invitation to visit Southend United to hear its problems, why does not he join me there?

Mr. Sproat: On the hon. Gentleman's point about co-operation with the Department of the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State co-operates fully with it in all planning matters of that sort. On his point about a reduction in pools income, that is a serious problem that the Government met in the most recent Budget by increasing the money available to the Football

Trust by 0.5 per cent. As for Southend, I shall make my own arrangements to learn everything that needs to be learnt there.

National Lottery

Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes in London have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [21893]

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Awards totalling £315 million have been made to 444 projects in London.

Mr. Congdon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that announcement, and in particular for the major flagship projects in London that have benefited. Will she pay tribute to the many small organisations that have benefited from the national lottery, in particular the Croydon victim support scheme and the Croydon refugee project? Do not those projects show the lottery's value to a variety of good causes, not only in London but throughout the country?

Mrs. Bottomley: I pay a special tribute to the National Lottery Charities Board, which has done a magnificent job in a very short space of time in providing grants to organisations involved in care in the community. In London, the board has provided around 225 grants, concerned with old people's welfare, volunteer bureaux, Mencap, toy libraries, under-fives projects and all manner of schemes to help support others in the community.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State is aware of the apparent regional competition for the allocation of lottery money. Will she consider doing two things to ensure that the situation is understood? First, will she allow the provision of formalised regional figures that would compare a region's allocations with its population? Secondly, and more important, will she allow the identification of grants that are clearly for local projects—such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon)—and those which are clearly for national projects, such as money for the Tate or the Earth centre in Doncaster, which are located in one region, but are for national and general benefit?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are some myths and misunderstandings about distribution of lottery money. Nine out of 10 awards have been outside London and four out of five awards have been for amounts less than £100,000. Frequently, large flagship projects draw attention and give a somewhat misleading impression but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, some flagship projects in London are leading to major opportunities in regeneration. Certainly the projects in his constituency—the £50 million Bankside project, the Globe theatre and others—mean that we can hope for a cultural quarter in London such as they have in Paris.

Arts, Sport and Heritage Funding

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of overall funding provision for (a) the arts, (b) sport and (c) heritage. [21894]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The areas for which I am responsible benefit hugely from a rich tapestry of funding.


The partnership between public money—in the form of central and local government support—the lottery and private money, through sponsorship, provides well over £3 billion for arts, sport and our heritage. That partnership supports all our sectors on a scale never enjoyed before.

Mr. Arnold: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this morning on the establishment of talent funds financed by the national lottery? It is extremely important that we provide good funding for youngsters talented in the arts and, in particular, in sports, because that funding will further strengthen Britain's performance in the great international competitions.

Mrs. Bottomley: The announcement made this morning to the effect that we are now able to extend the remit of the Arts Council and the Sports Council using national lottery money to invest in talent is, I think, widely welcomed. We want to promote participation to encourage youngsters to get involved in the arts and in sport and we want to go for gold by training our excellent athletes of the future.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that we have always accepted that, for Britain to advance, it is important to help those who need assistance yet, every day in Parliament, a Tory Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says, "Leave it to market forces and the talent will come up from the bottom—don't give them any money," but now that the Government have their sticky fingers on the lottery, they are saying, "Subsidise and intervene because market forces do not work for sport"?

Mrs. Bottomley: Anyone who had any doubt about new Labour need only listen to the hon. Gentleman's comments. In the past year, the national lottery has made 5,500 awards, which are leading to regeneration, promoting opportunity and developing social cohesion whether in the arts, sports, heritage or the environment. They are very much a force for good. They are a success, and I well understand that the Labour party cannot abide success.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend realise how much my constituent, Mr. Spencer Duval of Lichfield, the national steeplechase champion, will welcome the news about talent funds? Will she confirm that he is just the sort of person to receive money from the talent fund? Will she wish him luck as he hopes to represent this country in the Olympic games? Will she also wish his father, Mr. Derrick Duval, luck—he is my election agent for the next general election?

Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot say that lottery money will be available for the father but, as part of the next stage, I shall certainly pass on the concern that steeplechasers should be able to benefit from lottery money. The Sports Council has done a remarkable job. It has put money into around 40 sports and made 1,492 awards in just over a year. The move towards supporting talent, coaching and promoting international participants in sporting activity is one which the Sports Council sought and is proceeding with. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments about his constituent.

Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome today's statement by the Secretary of State that she intends to introduce

talent funds. She is right to say that her announcement will be widely welcomed. We certainly welcome it because she is implementing Labour policy—[Interruption.] I put the idea to her in the Chamber in a debate on 25 October last year, and I am pleased that she has taken it up. May I also welcome the associated announcement on the arts and historic buildings, which will also be welcomed? As it is now the case that individuals receive not only lottery cash but revenue funding, is not it important, from the point of view of access, fairness and probity, that any decisions are properly monitored and checked? What arrangements is the Secretary of State putting in place to ensure that the money is effectively and properly spent?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I shall not spend too long on ownership of the concept of talent funds, which will result in great benefits to many youngsters and others. In addition, the support announced for touring means that all parts of the country can benefit from some of the artistic excellence which is otherwise confined to the great city centres.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to ask about monitoring. My Department has in hand a rigorous programme for monitoring the various distributing bodies, which have to lay annual reports before Parliament. The sums involved are substantial and the money must be used for their proper purpose.

Millennium

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to highlight the attractions of the River Thames for the millennium. [21896]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: A range of initiatives has been put forward to highlight the attractions of the River Thames for the millennium. We are working closely with the London tourist board, the Government office for London and private sector partners to ensure that full advantage is taken of the excellent opportunities offered by the river for the millennium and beyond.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will recognise that the River Thames is arguably the least well-used river of the world's major capitals. Will she assure the House that she will seize the opportunity presented by the millennium celebrations to sweep aside all problems—financial or tidal—to ensure that the River Thames takes its rightful place as the pride of London and the country?

Mrs. Bottomley: I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I welcome the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. His Thames advisory group has done some very important work. Last week's news about the royal naval college is further encouragement. Up and down the Thames, projects are receiving investment on an unprecedented scale. My objective is precisely that of my hon. Friend: that the River Thames should retain a vital role in London.

Mr. Spearing: The remarks of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) will be echoed by all hon. Members who represent London constituencies and, I know, by the Secretary of State herself. Does she agree


that there needs to be proper co-ordination of the new river services to the two millennium sites at Greenwich—perhaps north of Greenwich, too—possibly under the aegis of the Port of London Authority? Does she also agree that Londoners would not appreciate development of a service oriented primarily to create a marine equivalent of the tourist hop-on hop-off buses, and would prefer it to be properly integrated with London's public passenger transport services?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know of his keen interest in the subject. Discussions are under way on proposals for the millennium festival at Greenwich. As the year progresses, I think that more public and private authorities will co-operate on taking the opportunity to invest in the capital. I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's thoughts about river transport are passed on.

National Lottery

Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the powers available to the operator of the national lottery to change the rules governing the amount and distribution of winnings. [21897]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Rules for payment of prizes from any game that forms part of the national lottery can be changed only with the prior consent of the Director General of the National Lottery.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that the recent rule adjustment relating to the £10 payout for forecasting three correct numbers was made at the behest of the Director General of the National Lottery only to cover what would be an extremely unlikely eventuality? Will she also confirm that, of all the bidders to run the national lottery, Camelot came forward with the lowest operating costs, and will in fact take in profit less than 1 per cent. of all the money staked?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend precisely describes the situation. As far as I have been able to establish, the lottery has the lowest operating costs of any national lottery anywhere in the world. It is extremely efficient and very well regulated. The recent announcement about the match-three rule resulted from the decision of the Director General of Oflot, who took a particularly scrupulous view of the matter, although, as he said, the chances of such an eventuality were about the same as meeting Elvis on the moon.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anger that Oflot's announcement has caused? Can she name one other lottery that pays out less than the allotted prize money, which is what has been proposed?

Mrs. Bottomley: I do not think that there has been widespread anger. People have continued to play the national lottery, and I expect that, once again, a very large number of people will play it for the roll-over on Easter Saturday. I accept that, at the time of the announcement, there was some misunderstanding, but people have since

seen it in its proper proportion. People have received their £10 on every occasion since the lottery started and I expect that they will continue to do so. When I am in Cambridge this week to open the Arts theatre, I shall discover whether there is great anger about the rule change. There is more likely to be great celebration that the Arts theatre is one of 147 theatres in the country that has benefited from the national lottery.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend tell the puritans of the left who want to interfere with the roll-over that, when there is a roll-over, many more people play and the beneficiaries are the good causes for which the lottery is designed?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is precisely right. There is an increase of about 20 per cent. in the number of players when there is a roll-over. More people play the national lottery than vote in a general election. When we manage to achieve the same participation rate as the national lottery, I shall think that we, as elected parliamentarians, are beginning to succeed.

Football (European Championship)

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to meet the English Football Association to discuss arrangements for the staging of the European championship. [21898]

Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend and I have been meeting the football authorities on a regular basis to discuss the organisation of Euro 96. We will meet them and other interested parties again shortly.

Mr. Banks: May I say en passant to the Minister that I was very disappointed that he did not present the Coca-Cola cup at Wembley and that the Secretary of State got the job? We all know how much she knows about football—the Cabinet's answer to Alan Hansen. Then again, I suppose that life is a bit of a bucket of cold spit; the Minister does get the topless dancer tossing the caber.
When the Minister talks to the Football Association, will he ensure that it puts a good spin on the European championship and that there is not just talk about who has the best hooligans and hooliganism generally? We are talking about football and not about a rerun of the 30 years war. It is important to stress the positive side of football and not the negative side.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is right and I hope that there will be magnificent games of football. However, many people are worried about possible outbursts of hooliganism and so on. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has now reached agreement with all the European countries that we can do everything possible to spot foreign hooligans and our own resident hooligans at matches.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of hotel companies propose to increase their room prices substantially during the competition and that that may have a damaging effect on the tourism industry generally? Is he further aware that charter airline companies are now talking of visitors to Britain for the


football competition coming only for the day? Is there not, therefore, some sense in discussing the matter with the hotel companies to ensure that what they propose does not damage the tourism industry this summer?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right to raise the point about opportunities for tourism generated by the European championship. We expect another 250,000 visitors as a result and another £100 million-worth of income to our tourism industry. The English tourist board sits on committees that are involved with the matter. I know that the board is worried that hotels may price themselves out of business and that it is taking all sensible measures to prevent that.

Mr. Maxton: When the Minister meets the English Football Association, will he discuss with it the great anger and concern in Scotland about the very small allocation of tickets for Scottish fans for the game between England and Scotland at Wembley on 15 June? Will he try to ensure that the allocation is increased because, otherwise, Scottish fans will get tickets that mean that they will mix with English fans, which may cause some difficulty?

Mr. Sproat: I shall do everything that it is proper for me to do.

Digital Television Multiplexes

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what quality criteria will be used in judging applications to operate digital television multiplexes. [21899]

Mr. Sproat: Applications for multiplex licences will be judged on their likely contribution to the successful development of digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom. A key criterion will be the variety of programming that applicants intend to provide. Existing terrestrial broadcasters, who have been meeting programming quality thresholds, are being offered guaranteed capacity on digital multiplexes.

Mr. Hain: Will the Minister accept the Independent Television Commission's desire to include quality among the criteria for judging applications by digital television multiplex operators? Surely quality has to be an essential part of the criteria because, otherwise, we are in for a diet of yet more American-type tat on television.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There are quality thresholds for BBC1, BBC2, channels 3, 4 and 5, and S4C, and the criteria of taste, decency and impartiality will apply to everyone. The Government are currently satisfied that those are sufficient, but we shall no doubt return to the matter during our debates on the Broadcasting Bill.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that over-regulation is the enemy of good quality television and of employment opportunities? Would not it be better for Britain and for our great television industry to cut regulation and allow our companies to compete for, and win, markets around the world?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes the other side of the case very well. It is important that a proper balance is struck between the quality of television and encouraging the expansion of our new digital television industry—not only programmes, but the equipment that British companies can manufacture and sell at home and abroad.

Departmental Accountability

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new proposals she has to improve the accountability of her Department. [21901]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My Department's aims and objectives, performance and future expenditure plans in the annual report were published on Monday 25 March. The content of that report is kept under review.

Mr. Flynn: Would not the Department be made more accountable if the Secretary of State discovered why places such as Hampton court and the Tower of London—unoccupied royal areas—are so popular? Would not there be an enormous boost to jobs and tourism if more royal palaces were unoccupied and freely open throughout the year to tourists? Will she follow the campaign of my hon. and, I understand, royal Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has said that he is willing to live in Caerphilly castle and—when he is monarch or president—that he will be happy to rule under the campaign title, "One monarch, one palace"?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the great popularity of royal palaces, and I commend Historic Royal Palaces for ensuring that they are more responsive, open and accessible.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Secretary of State now account to the House for one of the most damaging and self-destructive actions that she has taken—the Government's withdrawal last November from the Council of Europe's Eurimages scheme? Does she appreciate that the £2 million subscription leveraged between £45 million and £50 million a year of European co-production money to the advantage of our industry? In the absence of any Government policy for restarting and reinvigorating the feature film industry, will she now do a U-turn—one that we would welcome and support—and rejoin Eurimages?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is clear that Labour approaches every issue as if it were on a wish list—it never says no and says yes only to any spending commitment. The responsibility of the Government is to make difficult choices and to set priorities. Film has benefitted from 70 awards and £20 million from the national lottery, and that is an important boost to the industry. I shall take due note of the recommendations of Sir Peter Middleton's committee on film finance. We have no intention of changing our position on Eurimages, but we have every intention of pursuing that committee's recommendations.

D'Oyly Carte Theatre Company

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had on the future funding position of the D'Oyly Carte theatre company. [21902]

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she last had a meeting with the chairman of D'Oyly Carte to discuss future funding arrangements. [21906]

Mr. Sproat: I regard the D'Oyly Carte company as one of our national cultural institutions. I recently met Sir Michael Bishop, the chairman of D'Oyly Carte, who set out the company's current position, and I very much hope that the negotiations, which are continuing, about the company's future can soon be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for all parties involved, so that D'Oyly Carte can continue to flourish and delight audiences for years to come.

Mr. Brazier: Hear, hear. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Arts Council spent a little less than £56 million on the Royal Opera house and stopped subsidising chopped-up sheep, it would be able to help D'Oyly Carte? If he is having any trouble persuading the luvvies at the Arts Council, could he remind them of the words of W. S. Gilbert:
But the privilege and pleasure
That we treasure beyond measure
Is to run on little errands for the Ministers of State."?

Mr. Sproat: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his knowledge of Gilbert and Sullivan. I shall make certain that the chairman of the Arts Council not only receives a copy of what my hon. Friend said but is told of the tone of voice in which he said it and the support that he received in the House.

Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. Friend agree that D'Oyly Carte is in the great tradition of light opera that has delighted the British for many hundreds of years? D' Oyly Carte in particular has delighted my family for at least three generations. Will he ensure that the Arts Council spends less on dead sheep and sleeping models and a bit more on ensuring that this great, beloved tradition receives the funding that it deserves?

Mr. Sproat: I certainly agree that the D'Oyly Carte company, which has been going for more than 100 years, and Gilbert and Sullivan are among our great musical and literary traditions. The Arts Council does much good work and it would be a great shame if one or two eccentric decisions took away from the appreciation of what it does.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is not the real test of the Minister's stewardship of the performing arts whether he can whet the appetite of young children at school? Is not the test for the Government not to favour one or two of the competing claims lobbied for here this afternoon but to ensure that young men and women and our kids at school have access to the finest performing arts—the operas and the ballets—

which they are currently denied? We are a philistine state when it comes to promoting arts culture among our school children.

Mr. Sproat: One of the interesting things about Gilbert and Sullivan is that there is probably no better way of getting young people interested in music, opera and literature than this extremely accessible form of art. That is one of the reasons why we are so keen to see that D'Oyly Carte continues and flourishes.

Works of Art

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to retain in the United Kingdom those works of art which meet the Waverley criteria. [21903]

Mr. Sproat: When an object is found to meet the Waverley criteria, a decision on the export licence application will be deferred for a period to allow time for funds to be raised to make a compensating offer to purchase. If there is such an offer, the object will be retained. It is for potential purchasers to determine whether to make a fund-raising attempt.

Mr. Carrington: Does my hon. Friend agree that retaining the finest objects of this country's heritage is an appropriate use of national lottery funds? Will he make it clear to the national heritage memorial fund that one of its highest priorities should be to retain Waverley criteria items in this country?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I do agree with that. I agree that the lottery should be used, and indeed it can be used for that purpose. On 20 December the national heritage memorial fund contributed some £8 million to the purchase of a Seurat by the national gallery.

Mr. Cohen: Do any of the pictures owned by the Government meet the Waverley criteria? Why have so many gone missing from Government Departments, but worst of all from the Ministry of Defence? Will he take some action to make sure that generals, admirals and top civil servants cannot just walk off with the Government's paintings?

Mr. Sproat: I am sure that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question—whether some Government paintings fulfil the Waverley criteria—is yes. As for his second question, he will know that some of the paintings went missing when embassies such as that in Iran and elsewhere were subject to seige by the people of the country. It is true that we need to know why certain paintings which have been in the holding of the Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence are missing. I shall certainly be asking my right hon. Friends to account for them.

Broadcasting Bill

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received from Border Television with regard to the Broadcasting Bill. [21904]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Since publication of the Bill, Ministers in my Department have discussed the Bill's


provisions with the chief executive of Border Television, both individually and as part of a delegation from the holders of the licences for the five least populous channel 3 regions.

Mr. Martlew: I have expressed before my concern that the Broadcasting Bill will allow the takeover of Border Television and result in a loss of jobs in my constituency and the loss of quality programmes. Many of the small ITV companies carry programmes that are subsidised by the high-cost network schedule programming system. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that system will continue until at the very least the end of the licensing period or beyond?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is, indeed, an important issue about which many hon. Members will be concerned. It is important to protect the position of the smaller ITV companies and the element of regional identity that they give channel 3's output. I pay tribute to companies like Border Television, which often exceeds its required regional programming output and sustains the loyalty of viewers throughout its varied licence area. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Broadcasting Bill already allows the Independent Television Commission to require any new owner of a channel 3 licence to maintain existing levels and standards of regional broadcasting. We intend also to amend the Bill to require the ITC to disallow any change to the ITV networking arrangements which would jeopardise any company's regional output.

Mr. Harry Greenway: What view does my right hon. Friend take of Rupert Murdoch's decision to make Sky Sport's subscribers pay extra to watch the recent Bugner fight? [HON. MEMBERS: "Bruno!"] Does she regard that as the start of payment in the slot for television?

Madam Speaker: Order. That question bears no relation to the Broadcasting Bill.

Mrs. Bottomley: We are about to embark on an extremely complex Broadcasting Bill. By the time that we complete it, perhaps there will be greater clarity among all hon. Members about its provisions and the opportunities. There has been a massive amount of sport on television in recent years—it has developed rapidly. The extension, not only to subscription, but pay-per-view television is something that the new channels will make possible. What is important is to safeguard sufficient sport for the terrestrial television channels, which everyone watches. I think that their Lordships have safeguarded that in the amendment that they passed in another place.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Secretary of State aware that Border Television, which covers parts of England and Scotland, does not give Scottish politics adequate coverage, particularly Scottish questions in the House? Is she aware that many Scots living in the Border Television area are deprived of seeing Scottish Members of Parliament in action at Scottish Question Time? May I refer in particular to my mother, who is most concerned, as she lives in Galashiels, that she does not have the opportunity to see me on Scottish questions? Will the right hon. Lady do something about that right away?

Mrs. Bottomley: We are the party of the family and we would certainly want the hon. Gentleman's mother to

be happy on all possible occasions. I will pass on his comments to the ITC. When it comes to Opposition Members, I am not sure whether it is a question of impartiality or of taste and decency.

National Lottery

Sir Norman Fowler: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total amount of money from the national lottery so far distributed in Birmingham; and if she will make a statement. [21905]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To date, 54 awards totalling more than £14 million have been made to organisations in Birmingham.

Sir Norman Fowler: In the Greenwich decision a great deal of emphasis was placed on local regeneration. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a similar emphasis will be placed on regeneration projects in Birmingham, such as Millennium point.

Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly can give a very strong assurance. My right hon. Friend has been a vigorous champion of the west midlands case. I understand the disappointment of those in the Birmingham area and look forward to meeting a delegation on Wednesday this week with other members of the Millennium Commission to discuss the various issues involved. The Millennium Commission is committed to the use of lottery money wherever possible to promote regeneration. There is much coastal path restoration, for example, although that is not so useful in the Birmingham area, but when the Millennium Commission considers the major Millennium point application I will undoubtedly pass on my right hon. Friend's strong endorsement.

Mr. Olner: The Secretary of State knows that Birmingham's £14 million is very different from the £344 million that has been received by London. When will she consider the difference in funding between the regions as it affects Birmingham and my constituency of Nuneaton in Warwickshire? Grants to such areas are too small when compared with those given to London.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. Although lottery money is not distributed on a quota basis, all distributing bodies intend that the distribution of lottery funds should be monitored over time. In some parts of the country, people have been quick off the mark in applying for grants; in others, there has been a shortfall. Over the year ahead, we will seek to stimulate applications in those parts of the country that have not received the benefits that others have.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Disclosure of Records

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what categories of records are not disclosed after 30 years. [21922]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): The categories of records that are not disclosed after 30 years are set out in chapter 9 of the 1993 White Paper on open Government.

Mr. Banks: Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why that is so? Why are some records not released for up


to 100 years? Why are we not allowed to know about such things as Edward VIII's Nazi past, Hess' flight to Britain in 1941 or Queen Victoria's sexual peccadilloes? How could we change the rules? Who decides that we are not to be given such information? Is it not a fact that this country does not need an Official Secrets Act but a Freedom of Information Act?

Mr. Evans: There is an Advisory Council on Public Records, which is chaired by the Master of the Rolls. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is sitting beside the hon. Gentleman, is a member of the council. It gives advice on the records in question. However, the hon. Gentleman has previously complained about the suppression of papers relating to the forcible feeding of suffragettes. I have examined the files in relation to that matter; I was able to because they have been in the public domain since 1988.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Are documents likely to be revealed in 1996 which will disclose the dirty, back-room deals done by the Labour Government, perhaps at the expense of the taxpayer and the national interest, to get the TUC to support their 1966 wage freeze?

Mr. Evans: Records remain in Departments for 30 years. Ordinarily, they are disclosed after the 30-year period has expired. If there is a request by a Department, the matter is considered by the advisory council. Previously, there was a 50-year restriction but it was subsequently reduced to 30 years.

Mr. Alan Williams: When I recently joined the council, I was surprised to find that, in addition to matters of considerable importance, many other matters remain state secrets because they are so unimportant. Is the Minister aware that the dark secrets of Government hospitality going back to 1906 are denied to the public on the ground that the Department regards them as being so unimportant that it cannot allocate staff to desensitise them?

Mr. Evans: I am aware of that point because the hon. Gentleman has met me to raise it. His real point is that it is a question of staff resources rather than of the suppression of information, which would feed the conspiratorial suspicions of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Departmental Waste and Bureaucracy

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to reduce (a) bureaucracy and (b) waste in his Department. [21923]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: A wide range of measures to improve efficiency has been introduced, including the implementation of the Department's senior management review and the introduction, over the next year, of a new management structure for the Court Service.

Mr. Flynn: As £750,000 of public money has already been spent on the defence of the three soldiers who were found guilty of the foul and cowardly murder of Louise Jensen, does the Minister not think that it would be a

waste of legal aid funds if a similar sum were paid out for an appeal against their conviction? How would he explain the expenditure of our money to defend those three soldiers when constituents of mine on average or below average income have been refused legal aid?

Mr. Evans: It is not the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department to respond to particular questions in relation to certain cases where legal aid has been granted; that matter is in the hands of the respective legal aid authorities. The Government are very much aware of the necessity to ensure that the substantial sums of public money that are expended on legal aid are better targeted. That is why we are engaged in undertaking consultation on targeting need in terms of legal aid and why, in due course, the Government will announce their response to that consultation.

Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister aware that if a Member of Parliament tries to find out whether and, if so, how, a decision by the Legal Aid Board to grant legal aid can be justified, he will be told that the facts of the case are confidential? If he then asks the ombudsman to inquire, the ombudsman will tell him that he cannot inquire unless he is asked to do so by a party to the case. I understand that even if our noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor were to ask, he would be told that the matter was confidential. Will my hon. Friend consider ways in which the Legal Aid Board can be made more accountable to Parliament and place a note of his conclusions in the Library?

Mr. Evans: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is important that the Legal Aid Board should be accountable, but that it is also important that its decisions to grant legal aid in specific cases should not be influenced in any way by governmental or individual political decisions. That is why, as I said earlier, the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department not to respond on individual cases is right. My hon. Friend is quite right, however, that the Legal Aid Board must be seen to be accountable for its actions.

Court Buildings (Closure)

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the procedure for closure of court buildings. [21924]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The Lord Chancellor's Department has responsibility for the Crown and county court estate, and has no plans to change its procedure for considering court closure. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department has no role in initiating the closure of magistrates courts, which falls to the local magistrates courts committee.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister will be aware that Wakefield Crown court was closed two years ago. As that building is still in the ownership of the Government and has not yet been sold, can he give me an assurance that the building will be properly maintained, because concern has been expressed about its fabric? It is one of the finest buildings in Wakefield. Bearing it in mind that, since its


closure, it has been used nearly 300 times for court purposes, will he review the formal closure programme agreed two years ago?

Mr. Evans: It is important to distinguish the cases that are dealt with at Wakefield Crown court from the generality of cases dealt with at Wakefield county court. The county court deals with a range of civil business and will continue to do so, whereas the cases dealt with at Wakefield Crown court are those transferred to it from the Leeds area—some 262 cases according to my latest information. I am keen to ensure that the fabric of all buildings within the Government's estate are properly maintained. In view of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I will look into the matter.

Sir Donald Thompson: When my hon. Friend goes to Wakefield to look into the matter, perhaps he could pop on to Calder Valley to pay me a visit at the same time, because we in Calder Valley would like to thank him and the Lord Chancellor for their recent decision on the magistrates committee in Calderdale. Small market town courts are important; if we lose them, we lose a cadre of solicitors and associated people who have known a town and district for generations. That would also affect the speed of justice, but law's delay is less irksome if we keep as many courts as possible.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks in relation to the recent meeting that the Lord Chancellor and I had with him to discuss the organisation of magistrates courts in his area. I draw the distinction, as I did in reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), about the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department in considering the future of county court premises as against the magistrates courts, but I give an assurance to the House that the factors that influence the Lord Chancellor's Department are primarily geared towards improving the service to court users and that, in those circumstances, financial considerations do not overrule any other considerations in relation to court premises.

Mr. Boateng: Is the Minister aware that the funding arrangements and the formula applied by the Lord Chancellor's Department in calculating grant to local magistrates courts committees is responsible for many of the closures of courthouses and courtrooms and the laying off of court staff, especially those responsible for security and the collection of awards made to victims of crime? Is he aware of the widespread anxiety on both sides of the House about the impact on the morale of the Court Service and on the interests of justice? Imposing Treasury-driven inflexible rules on the magistrates court system has led to incalculable harm and denial of justice.

Mr. Evans: I am aware of the fact that the magistrates courts committees are funded on a formula basis, and that is a necessary and essential product of the fact that we decided, following the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, to retain the independence of those magistrates courts committees.
When I had the opportunity of speaking to the council of the magistrates courts committees but a matter of days after my appointment to this post, I said that the Lord Chancellor's Department was happy to examine any

anomalies in relation to the formula basis. In my judgment, the current operation of the formula properly assesses the rate of grant that should be given to most magistrates courts, but clearly some courts are disadvantaged by the way in which the formula works out and, as I said to the council, if the hon. Gentleman can propose any change in the formula that properly tackles that, I shall be happy to examine it.

Legal Aid Board

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many solicitors have been prosecuted for attempting to defraud the Legal Aid Board in each of the last three years. [21925]

Mr. Evans: The number of concluded cases where solicitors have appeared at court charged with offences of fraud or attempted fraud against the Legal Aid Board in the past three years are as follows. In 1993–94, three cases; in 1994–95, no cases; in 1995–96, two cases. In addition, 19 cases are currently under investigation by the prosecuting authorities or are awaiting trial.

Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister accept that that may well be the tip of an iceberg, especially in view of the number of complaints that pass through my constituency surgery about the quality of service provided by solicitors? Is it not about time for us to ensure that the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau starts acting more like the General Medical Council, for example, with clear powers and an independent role? My constituents perceive that the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau is merely a mechanism by which solicitors investigate themselves. We should have a far more independent element in order to retain people's confidence in the system.

Mr. Evans: My response earlier that 19 cases are currently under investigation by the prosecuting authorities or awaiting trial tends to run against the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said. Between 1990 and 1995, about 4,600 investigations have been undertaken of solicitors or of assisted persons, but decisions as to whether there should be prosecutions in individual cases must remain that of the individual prosecuting authorities.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that, increasingly, the Legal Aid Board is regarded as a soft touch by unscrupulous solicitors and unscrupulous litigants?

Mr. Evans: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the legal profession, whose members, for the most part, behave with the utmost integrity, must take on board the message that those individual solicitors, small in number, who are engaged in improper activity must be rooted out and dealt with. I confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to do that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister have the figures for disciplinary proceedings instigated against solicitors acting in legal aid cases? Is he aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction among senior officers of the Legal Aid Board? Some solicitors are not doing their job properly and wasting a large amount of public money, as well as giving a very bad service for that reason.

Mr. Evans: As I said earlier, it is certainly the Government's view that we could be targeting legal aid expenditure very much better than we are doing at the moment. That is the philosophy that underpins the Government's approach to consultation about taking forward changes to the legal aid structure. At the same time it is important to draw a distinction between cases in which one is dealing with disciplinary proceedings against individual solicitors and allegations of fraud. Cases in which fraud may have taken place must clearly remain in the hands of the individual and independent prosecuting authorities.

Magistrates Courts

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations he has had over the administration of magistrates courts in London. [21926]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: My officials are in regular contact with the strategic management body which

represents the management interests of all the outer London courts and with the inner London magistrates courts committee on a wide variety of issues.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will be aware that Merton magistrates court is working very well under the current arrangements for the 20 outer London courts. Will he assure the House that when the matter is reviewed the demands of cash limits will not mean that courts will be amalgamated, thus abolishing the undoubted benefits of local autonomy?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend will be disappointed to hear me say that it is far too early for me to give a categorical assurance on that matter at this point. He is aware that it is the Government's policy to review the position five years after the establishment of the strategic management body, which was set up in September 1994. My Department has received reports of its operation in the past year and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are currently considering them.

European Council

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Turin on 29 March which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The purpose of the meeting was to launch the intergovernmental conference aimed at preparing the European Union for the next phase of enlargement. The Council conclusions, which I have placed in the Library, set out the main areas of the IGC' s agenda. We have ensured that the conclusions do not prejudice the actual negotiations in any way, nor do they contain an exhaustive list of the issues for negotiation. We shall pursue our objectives for the development of Europe as a partnership of nations, as set out in the Government's recent White Paper.
The negotiations themselves will now begin. They may well last for a year or perhaps longer. Foreign Ministers will meet every month. Their personal representatives will meet every week. I outlined to the European Council the Government's approach to the intergovernmental conference. I made it clear that our vision of Europe is built around the bedrock of the nation state. I also set out some of the areas where the United Kingdom will be putting forward proposals, and those where we have strong views.
For example, I underlined the need for the principle of subsidiarity to be enshrined in the treaty; the value of a greater role for national Parliaments; our desire to see Europe's common foreign and security policy work better while preserving its basis of unanimity; the need for further progress in co-operation in justice and home affairs without undermining its essential intergovernmental character; our opposition to any further extension of qualified majority voting; and our insistence on reforms for the working of the European Court of Justice.
I also made plain to the European Council my particular concern about the recent opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice on the working time directive and its implications for the intergovernmental conference. I said that I was not prepared to see the social chapter opt-out undermined as a result of an expansive and unreasonable interpretation of the health and safety article of the treaty. I made it clear that I would be looking in the intergovernmental conference for changes to that article to reflect our earlier understanding of its limited scope.
The European Council also held a brief discussion on employment and competitiveness. This subject will rightly be high on the agenda of its meeting in Florence in June and I set out the Government's views.
Europe has to be globally competitive. Jobs are not created by Governments—and still fewer are created by the European Union. Jobs come from the decisions of businesses in the marketplace. Job creation needs less regulation, not more; and there must be lower financial and other burdens on business, not extra impositions arising from ill-conceived European directives. There is increasing understanding of these realities among some of our European partners. I was encouraged by the

discussion, but I will continue to resist strongly any suggestion that the treaty be amended to cover employment issues. Action in those areas is overwhelmingly for individual countries, not for the European Union collectively.
All the Heads of State and Government in Turin were acutely conscious of the Europewide crisis in the beef market. This is, and was treated as, an entirely separate issue from the intergovernmental conference agenda. There was no question in anyone's mind of trading help in one area against co-operation in another. I told my colleagues of the impact in this country of the ban on British beef decided in Brussels last week—particularly as it was taken on the basis of considerations other than the scientific advice.
I suggested to my colleagues that three things were now needed. First, the conditions should be created as speedily as possible to allow the ban on British beef exports to be lifted. Secondly, the specific problems of the United Kingdom beef market had to be addressed. I looked to the Union for sympathetic and speedy support for the measures necessary to return confidence and stability to the market. Thirdly, it should be recognised that this was a European, not just a British, problem.
The response of my European colleagues was, without exception, one of support. There was universal agreement that this was a Europewide problem and that a European solution was required. All Heads of State and Government who spoke expressed readiness to see the European Union bear a share of the financial burden and recalled the European Union help in the swine fever epidemic a few years ago. This was a welcome response, in tone as well as in substance, but we still have some way to go.
Negotiations continue with the Commission on the measures needed to restore confidence. My right hon and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture is in Luxembourg today to take this forward and to attend a meeting of European Ministers of Agriculture, which is now under way.
I emphasised to my European colleagues that, with the measures we have taken, British beef is—on any normal definition of the term—safe. No one disputed this. Everyone recognised that the present crisis came not from a real health risk but from unnecessary hysteria across Europe.
At Turin the intergovernmental conference was launched with an agenda that enables us to pursue our objectives in a non-prejudicial climate. I was able to make clear to my European colleagues our strong views on certain key issues, including what is needed to tackle unemployment across Europe as well as in Britain. We achieved a notable measure of understanding and support over the beef crisis that we and our European partners face together. The need now is to turn this support into action, particularly the lifting of the export ban on British beef and beef products. That is our immediate objective. It is important and we are pursuing it urgently.

Mr. Tony Blair: I shall deal with the statement in two parts: the beef issue and the intergovernmental conference proper. In relation to beef, will the Prime Minister assure us that once the Government have alighted on a package of measures, they will widely consult the farmers, the food retailers, the consumers' organisations and others to ensure that they


can command the widest possible basis of consent? I refer to the measures already announced to improve the situation in abattoirs in particular. Is this at least already agreed among the members of the European Union?
In relation to the proposals that we have seen discussed for selective slaughter, am I right in saying that, in effect, should such a proposal be proceeded with, the choice will be between slaughtering cattle above a certain age and slaughtering cattle from particular herds? At this point, do the Government have a view on these options? Given that we agree at least on this—that whatever is done should have some basis in scientific evidence—is there a particular course that that evidence suggests?
May I ask the Prime Minister in particular what is the estimated cost of any of these options; what will be the contribution of the European Union to it; whether such a contribution will simply be a deduction from the British rebate; and when he expects a package to be agreed and the ban lifted?
May I also join the Prime Minister in endorsing the spirit of partnership shown in Turin towards Britain? He was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying to the summit:
I wish the Eurosceptics back in Britain could be in this room now to see how European solidarity works in practice.

The Prime Minister: indicated dissent.

Mr. Blair: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman denies it. I would endorse such comments, but would not it be better if he repeated those sentiments more often here in Britain to the faces of the sceptics?
On the IGC specifically, can the Prime Minister tell us what are the prospects now for reweighting the existing system of voting, which is discriminatory against the larger countries? Is he seriously saying, and will he maintain throughout, that there should be no extension of qualified majority voting in any area, not merely in areas such as defence, tax or immigration, with which we would agree, but in any area, such as industry or environment? Is it not manifestly in Britain's interests for there to be some extension of QMV in certain areas, otherwise—especially as the EU enlarges—small countries can block any progress?
The Prime Minister will note that his long statement after the summit contained no mention of the common fisheries policy. Is reform of that policy on the agenda, as he did say, I think, that he would put it on the agenda for Turin? Perhaps he will comment on that.
We welcome the Council's decision to make fighting unemployment a priority for the European Union, and believe that such action can be taken individually and collectively within Europe. Is not Britain's interest in this clear given the massive job insecurity here with 9 million people having suffered at least one spell of unemployment since the last election and with unemployment—particularly long-term and male unemployment rates—still higher than in many of our competitor countries? Does the Prime Minister not agree with President Chirac today that laissez-faire and more deregulation are not sufficient for job creation?
Will the Prime Minister tell us just what is the Government's position on a referendum for a single currency? First, the Cabinet meeting two weeks ago was

supposed to resolve it, then it was to be announced at Harrogate. What is happening apart from the daily combat in newspaper briefings between the respective combatants? If it is true—apparently it is—that, in any referendum, the Prime Minister will enforce Cabinet collective responsibility, will he tell us now, with a straight face, whether in any circumstances his Chancellor and Defence Secretary, to name but two, would ever agree? If Sir James Goldsmith demands more concessions, will they be forthcoming?
Is not the lesson of the weekend that Britain gains most from Europe by a spirit not of perpetual isolationism but constructive co-operation, and that that is the only way for Britain to lead in Europe and to be a source of strength to itself and to others?

The Prime Minister: I shall seek to deal with the matters covered by the IGC, although I notice that a number of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman had nothing whatever to do with it. They were not discussed in the IGC and, from the broad smile on his face, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman knows that very well. I hope that he enjoyed his mischief.
I deal first with beef. When we have concluded, of course we shall wish to consult on a package. By that I do not mean a long period of formal consultation. We need to move speedily. Of course we shall consult speedily with the people who are predominantly interested in this, but it is in the interests of everybody in the beef industry to reach an agreement with our European partners which we and they think will restore confidence in the beef industry. Confidence is the point. It is not so much a question of public health but confidence that now needs to be addressed, and clearly we need to do that speedily in everyone's interests.
On the measures previously announced, of course they are agreed with our European partners.
Selective slaughter may prove necessary. Two elements are involved. First, there is the need to ensure that milking herds that have finished their milking lives—that are spent—do not then enter the food chain. That does, of course, involve slaughter. Secondly, there is the question of whether any further selective slaughter should take place. Clearly, we need to base that decision on science as far as is practicable. We are looking at some novel ways of ensuring that we find the right beasts if it is deemed necessary to proceed.
It is impossible to give an estimate of the resources until the determination of the right method is concluded. As soon as that is known, I shall be able to give the right hon. Gentleman an estimate.
We have made it clear that we need the ban to be lifted as speedily as possible, not only in the interests of the United Kingdom. Beyond Europe, many countries are interpreting the ban on British beef as an unwillingness to import any European beef at all. A number of our European competitors are also finding that their beef is not being exported. It is a European problem, and those countries, as well as us, will need to consider the question speedily.
The quotation that the right hon. Gentleman used was amusing, but not accurate.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Share it with us.

The Prime Minister: If I wasted my time responding to every inaccuracy that appears either in the House or


beyond, I would have the pleasure of a 24-hour-a-day sojourn at the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] As for the intergovernmental conference—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would stop shouting from a sedentary position and listen to what the Prime Minister has to say.

The Prime Minister: As for the intergovernmental conference, we are pursuing the question of reweighting the voting, and I anticipate that we shall have the support of a number of other states in achieving that. Britain is not likely to be isolated in this regard. It will be a matter of some importance, especially as the Community enlarges. I anticipate success. I do not anticipate any significant extension of qualified majority voting, and it is possible that there will be no single extension at all. We are not seeking to accept any. What may turn up in negotiations lies ahead; at present, we do not intend to accept any extension of QMV whatever. I hope that that is clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman: no extension of qualified majority voting.
As for fisheries, I said earlier that the list of matters to be dealt with in the IGC—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would listen, he might know the answer.
I said in my statement that the list was not exhaustive. We will be looking for changes in the common fisheries policy, particularly to deal with quota hopping. I have set that out in the past. There may well be other matters, not yet identified either by us or by other nations, that will be dealt with at the conference. The list of matters set out at Turin is in no sense necessarily exhaustive either for us or for others.
Of course, by co-operation, there are things that the European countries can do collectively in regard to unemployment. We have no objection to that; what we strongly object to is the suggestion that this should become a European competence with legislation taken—perhaps by qualified majority vote—as part of the treaty. We are not prepared to have employment measures inserted in the treaty. Of course we will co-operate when it is reasonable and sensible to do so, but overwhelmingly we think that that is a matter for individual countries, not for the Community as a whole.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: You have not been very successful, have you?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that we are not very successful. We are a good deal more successful than any other major European country in bringing down unemployment. No other major European country has had unemployment falling as steadily as we have over the past two and a half years; no other major European country has had unemployment as low as ours over the past two and a half years; and no other major European country has had a higher proportion of its population in work as ours over the past two and a half years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to compare employment records, I am happy to do so, because ours is undoubtedly a good deal better than anyone else's—especially those of the socialist Governments across Europe that we have seen operating in the economic climate of the past few years.
As for matters related to a referendum, I will let the right hon. Gentleman know as soon as I am in a position to do so and I will not be diverted on that point now.
One point I missed—as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) reminded me from a sedentary position with his usual compulsive charm—was the question of the cost. The cost is a net position between the total that we pay in and the total that we get out. Where the European Union provides us with assistance, in the convoluted system that the European Union works, a portion of that finds itself deducted from our rebate, but there is a net significant advantage to the United Kingdom and any help from the European Union in that sense will of course be welcomed.

Sir Peter Hordern: In dealing with the employment aspect of the intergovernmental conference, has my right hon. Friend read the latest report from the Bundesbank review, which refers to the need for differentiation of wages in the German economy and to the high level of social costs and taxes in Germany being the reason for high unemployment levels? Will he give an undertaking that Britain will continue to have the lowest social costs in the European Union and that the future of the single market and of the European Union depends on having low social costs, which are necessary for it to be competitive both with the United States of America and with the far east? If that is not done, the single market will not succeed.
As for taking advice from the Opposition on matters of beef, does my right hon. Friend agree that they have been much more interested in playing party politics than in the livelihood of thousands of people throughout this country?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. On his last point, it is a matter not so much of my having noticed that, but of the 650,000 people who work in the beef industry having noticed it.
On my right hon. Friend's earlier point, clearly he is right about the relationship between employers' total costs and employment. He referred to differentiation of wages in Germany, but I should make the point that this is largely to do with other non-social costs. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development pointed out, in terms of net wage levels after tax, the UK compares favourably with all our European Union partners. The UK worker's net pay and what it will buy are good value compared with such pay in other European countries, which have become increasingly uncompetitive because of the amount of money over and above wages that every job costs employers. For every £100 in wages, an employer in this country faces extra on-costs of £18, but in some European countries, that figure goes up to as much as £44. On that basis, it is unsurprising that, in many European countries, there are fewer jobs than here.
As for the single market, my right hon. Friend is entirely right. The single market is immensely important for prosperity both here and throughout Europe. In many areas, it is not yet completed. We must ensure that it is completed. We shall continue to work for it to be so.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: When the Prime Minister told us that success always derived from less regulation, did he have in mind as an example the


origins of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis? He knows that we disagree with the Government's policy on Europe. We believe that Britain is paying—including in the BSE crisis—a high price for that policy.
If the Government have spent the past 17 years making enemies in Europe, it is not surprising that, when they are in difficulties, friends are initially difficult to find, but the Prime Minister will understand why, at this stage, the nation will be concentrating in particular on the impact of the BSE crisis. It is greatly to be welcomed that the European Community has now understood that this is a problem for all of Europe, not just Britain. This is one of those issues in which Europe is not the problem, as many of his Euro-sceptics would suggest, but the solution. The fact that there is now European support does not absolve the Government from taking action.
As the Government have, in my view, misjudged the extent of the action necessary last Monday, there is now grave danger in every single day's delay inflicted on those who are waiting for word from the Government about what to do next. Having spent the weekend listening to them, I am especially concerned about the position of the owners of small abattoirs and small cattle hauliers. Carcases are now backed up in cold storage, and there is nothing further that can be done unless the Government will act. Will the Prime Minister at least give us an undertaking that, whatever Europe may or may not do, the Government will announce what they are going to do before the House rises?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman tells us in one moment that Europe is the answer and then advises us not to discuss matters with Europe but perhaps to act unilaterally and make an agreement more difficult. He really needs to make up his mind which of his two European hats he is going to wear.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about deregulation, they are just plainly wrong. He is plain wrong on that point. That argument is based on a totally false premise. The right hon. Gentleman is flatly wrong—

Mr. Gordon Prentice: He is not wrong.

The Prime Minister: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman shouting like a parrot, "He is not wrong." The right hon. Gentleman happens to be wrong. That is the fact of the matter, and there is nothing whatever that one can do about it.
As for Europe, it is not a question of our having enemies in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman does not see this matter in the right light. People in Europe do not expect us to agree with them on every issue. They know that we are a Conservative, not Liberal, Government. They know that we will fight for the national interest and that we shall stick to that. Being in a kindly mode, I shall spare the right hon. Gentleman a list of quotes which shows that the European policy of the Liberal party has shifted from pillar to post almost on a daily basis, or almost between member and member. The right hon. Gentleman has the grace to blush, so I shall spare him on that account—[Laughter.] By popular acclaim, I shall spare the right hon. Gentleman.
We are well aware of the difficulties faced by abattoirs and others, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that, for reasons that are important for abattoirs too, it is necessary to reach these agreements with our European partners; otherwise the meat passed through the abattoirs would not be acceptable to our European partners. If we cannot reach agreement before the House rises, it is not possible for us sensibly and credibly to announce an agreement to the House. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing in Luxembourg at the moment. There will be no delay—as soon as we can reach an agreement, we shall make an announcement, but it has to be reached with our partners and we all have to be satisfied with it.

Mr. John Redwood: Given the daily damage being done to the fishing industry, when will the Government table proposals, how will they go about winning support for them from our partners, and would they consider unilateral action in the absence of any support?

The Prime Minister: I said a few moments ago that we intend to raise the common fisheries policy at the intergovernmental conference. I do not share the view that opting out of the common fisheries policy would be in the interests of the fishing industry in this country. The great danger of that would be that, in a measurably short period of years, stocks would be so over-fished that there would be no fishing industry left. We need to address the grievances thrown up in the past few years—especially quota-hopping. I told the House that we shall most certainly raise those matters at the intergovernmental conference and seek to reach an agreement. It will be very difficult to reach such an agreement, but I believe that we shall be successful because unanimity is necessary for an outcome to this conference.

Mr. Peter Shore: The IGC is a revision conference for the Maastricht treaty. Is it not therefore extraordinary that the most controversial, unsatisfactory and job-destroying features of that treaty—I refer to economic and monetary union and the convergence criteria for a single currency—are not on the conference's agenda? Is not it even odder that the problem of unemployment, which is on the agenda and which the Prime Minister says is of the highest priority, should be considered although the direct relevance of the convergence criteria to the creation of unemployment in Europe is not being considered at the same time?

The Prime Minister: I noticed restrained enthusiasm among Opposition Front-Bench Members for what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. Let me deal with each of his points in turn. The IGC is primarily not a revision conference for Maastricht but a preparation for enlargement of the Community. That is the essential reason for having the IGC. Economic and monetary union is of course vital and the decision made on that will be very important for a whole range of economic matters, including, in my judgment, employment. The fact that that is not being addressed at the IGC is because of the conference's character. It is being discussed in parallel and will continually be discussed in parallel as the IGC proceeds. So there is no question of final decisions having


being made on it; there is no question of it not being revisited as events move forward. We have to make our decisions on whether it is appropriate to go ahead or not, but it is not appropriate to the fresh set of negotiations at the conference. The matter will be seen as being carried on in parallel.

Mr. Michael Colvin: On enlargement and the reweighting of qualified majority voting, will my right hon. Friend confirm that our Ministers will continue to work towards ensuring that those countries collectively that are net beneficiaries from the European budget will not be able to out-vote countries that are net contributors to the budget, such as Britain, because if they did there would be no way of controlling the growth of that budget?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches upon a most important point. I can confirm that that will be one of our objectives as we seek the reweighting of voting weights for decision making in the European Union. One of the problems in the early 1980s was that with so few net contributors, there was a very real risk—in weight of numbers, and often it seemed in weight of votes as well—that provided that one of the major countries abstained, a minority view was able to prevail. That is not a satisfactory way in which to run the European Union, and that is why we need reweighting.

Mr. David Trimble: I hope that tomorrow's agriculture statement will contain a series of measures that will result in the immediate lifting of the European ban on beef exports. Such a measure is absolutely essential for the meat industry in Northern Ireland, which is so heavily dependent on exports. Does the Prime Minister agree that such a measure, while necessary, is not sufficient, because there is no guarantee that when the ban is lifted the markets that we had in Europe and elsewhere will return immediately? Will not it therefore be necessary to follow matters up with a drive on marketing beef, and especially a scheme that will emphasise the undoubted quality of so much of the beef production in Ulster and Scotland? Will that not be absolutely essential after tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the beef industry to Northern Ireland. It is clearly critical to Northern Ireland's economy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I are acutely aware of that fact and the possible need for assistance. We too are seeking the earliest possible lifting of the ban. I would not like to indicate to the House today that I think that it is likely to be achieved by tomorrow, because we first need a Commission proposal to the standing veterinary committee, then a positive decision by member states' representatives on that committee, and then endorsement of the decision by the full Commission. We need that as soon as possible and we shall be pressing for it as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman realises, we need that agreement across Europe or there will be very real difficulty. We are seeking it as speedily as possible. It is not something that we can obtain unilaterally. Any indication that the hon. Gentleman cares to give directly

to the European Commission and others of the importance of the matter will obviously be very welcome. We shall certainly press it very hard.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Is not it quite clear that there is a great desire among the British people that the Government should not hand over any further powers to the European Union and its institutions at the IGC? Will he confirm that that is indeed the Government's approach? Is not the reason why a number of continental Governments want the IGC to last for more than a year that they hope—it is a forlorn hope—that the Labour party will be elected? In those circumstances, a socialist Government would undoubtedly hand over more power to Brussels and the European institutions.

The Prime Minister: I saw written in one of our great newspapers this morning—it may or may not be accurate—that one of the federalist Prime Ministers indicated that he would like to be dealing with a Labour Government because they too would be federalist, in the sense that we do not wish to see, and centralist, and would not stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom. That was allegedly said by one of the Prime Ministers whom the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) or his nominee would meet on occasions when socialists across Europe meet to decide policy. If that is the case, one wonders what private promises may have been given about Labour's negotiating position. We know that the manifesto agreements signed by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) some time ago would be an absolute disaster if they became the policy of any British Government.
We seek to ensure that we remain a Europe of nation states, that we accommodate the enlargement of the European Union, which is the most important matter that lies in front of the European Union at the moment, and that we do so while maintaining the robust independence of parliamentary procedures that we have traditionally enjoyed.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not grotesquely unfair that some poor old cow, who has given a life of service to human beings in terms of delivering milk, ends up with a bolt through her head and is chucked into a fire? I know that one can think of a recent political equivalent, but the situation is no better for that.
Is there any chance during the IGC that we can change the definition of the word "animal" so that we can extend animal welfare provisions to farm animals and treat them as sentient beings, not just as any other agricultural product?

The Prime Minister: We are seeking some changes in animal welfare in the intergovernmental conference, as the hon. Gentleman may be, but not, perhaps, the change that he has in mind. I am prepared to consider his suggestion, but not for very long—and, having considered it, I reject his proposal. None the less, we are certainly seeking improvements in animal welfare generally.

Sir Michael Spicer: While warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend's commitment for further federalism in Europe, may I ask him what specific proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I should


have said "against". [HON. MEMBERS: "You didn't."] I apologise. It would be out of keeping with four years of speeches if I had not said "against".
What specific proposals has my right hon. Friend tabled against the repatriation of powers—[Interruption.] I seem to be getting it all wrong today. What proposals has he tabled in favour of the repatriation of powers to Parliament, bearing in mind the fact that the Turin communiqué—I will get this bit right—reaffirms the aquis communautaire?

The Prime Minister: We set out our negotiating position in the White Paper that the House saw a few days ago and my hon. Friend will know what it is. In the negotiations, we can take further measures if we choose to, but for the moment, the measures we have decided on are those set out in the White Paper.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Since the Prime Minister's return from Turin, has he, like me, had an opportunity to study the report compiled by the Trustee Savings bank of Scotland on the significance of agriculture and the impact that the BSE problem is having on about 21,500 jobs? Agriculture is a fundamental part of our economy. Obviously, the Prime Minister has not had an opportunity to study the report, but I will ensure that he has a copy of it.
Given the comments already made, will the Prime Minister recognise the importance of the quality assurance scheme that applies to BSE-free herds? In this context, will he expand on his comment to a reporter from The Herald at the weekend in Turin that there was a possibility of looking at a preferential scheme that would enable herds that were already BSE-free to make an early return into the competitive market?

The Prime Minister: That is not precisely what I said, but it is fairly close. The point I was making—a general point, and not specifically to anyone from The Herald—is that some herds across the United Kingdom have never had a case of BSE, and we will be examining whether there is a way in which we can take account of that in the decisions that may have to be reached in the next few days. Clearly that is important, and we believe that we should take account of that fact. We are discussing the matter with the Commission and with our partners at the moment. I have not seen the TSB report to which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) refers, but I am aware of the importance of the beef industry to Scotland, as well as to Northern Ireland and elsewhere. That is why we are seeking a comprehensive outcome that will assist in a return of confidence as speedily as we can.

Sir Wyn Roberts: While complimenting my right hon. Friend on the progress made in Turin, may I ask whether he detected during his discussions on unemployment any sign of our European partners embracing the policies that have brought unemployment down in this country while it has risen in so many European countries? Did he detect any sign that they would stop handicapping competitiveness—as, I believe, the French were proposing?

The Prime Minister: There were mixed views on the issue among our European partners. There would have

been a single collective view a year or so ago in favour of more social expenditure of one sort or another, but that is no longer the case. There are those who still hold to that proposition, but a number of others who have seen what has happened to unemployment in the past two years here and elsewhere realise that they must hold down the levels of social expenditure over and above wages. That will be absolutely necessary if Europe is to reduce the 18 million adults currently unemployed within the EU.

Mr. Harry Barnes: In accountancy matters, proportions can be worked out exactly and precisely. Can we therefore be told what amount of our own money will be returned to us by the EU in connection with its assistance on BSE?

The Prime Minister: As soon as we know precisely the areas in which the aid will be and its quantum, the answer will be yes. But in the absence of that, it is difficult to be precise in what is a complex system. Although there will be a substantial contribution by the EU, there are areas—for example, if there were to be a selective culling programme—where some of the overall costs would be borne by the United Kingdom. Some of the EU contribution would be netted off against the rebate, but it is not possible to be precise until we know the scale and terms of the contribution, and I would not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In relation to qualified majority voting—against which the Government have resolutely set their face—will my right hon. Friend seek a modification of QMV as regards fisheries policy? When the EU is enlarged—as we hope it will be—will not the fishing fleets of, for example, Poland seek access to the common resource of the British fishing grounds to the potential detriment of British fishermen?

The Prime Minister: A lot may depend on precisely what negotiated changes we may be able to make in the common fisheries policy, but for the moment we have proposed not to withdraw QMV from where it presently exists, but to ensure that it is not extended to areas in which it has not yet been present.

Mr. Mike Gapes: If the Prime Minister is so opposed to moves towards a single European currency, why has he signed up to a statement that commits all members of the EU to the full implementation of the treaties, and states that all new member states that come in following enlargement will be subjected to the aquis communautaire, which will apply to all members equally—including a commitment to a single currency?

The Prime Minister: Very simply. If the hon. Gentleman had observed what had happened in the European Union in the past few years, he would have noticed that Britain is not committed to joining economic and monetary union. We have an opt-out, as indeed now does Denmark. Our position is different from that of the rest of the European Union. For that reason, we find ourselves in a wholly better position than anyone else. If the hon. Gentleman understands that, he will see that it precisely meets his point.

Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend referred in the IGC to questions of principle. Given that


the presidency conclusions, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, refer to economic and monetary union, and given that in our own White Paper it is stated that we will not press ideas that will not gain general acceptance from the other member states, does my right hon. Friend intend to reject the single currency and to ensure that it is not inflicted on the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: The single currency will not be a matter of discussion, as I said to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) some time ago, in the intergovernmental conference itself. It will be a matter for discussion in parallel with the IGC. Member states will have first to determine whether they meet the criteria to join and then indicate some time before 1999—if that is the date on which people proceed—whether they propose to join. At this stage, no one yet knows whether that date of 1999 can be achieved. Many people, myself included, doubt that it can satisfactorily and safely be achieved.
At a later stage, a decision will need to be made as to which countries qualify and which countries, having qualified, decide whether or not to proceed. We are in the unique position that if we qualify, we do not have to proceed. Other countries are in the position that if they qualify they are committed to proceeding by the Maastricht treaty. That is not our case. So it will not be discussed in the IGC, as my hon. Friend surmises, but outside it, and we are free to leave making the decision until a very late stage whether or not we think it is right for this country to take part.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: What action is the Prime Minister taking to urge a co-ordinated European approach to arms export controls? Does he agree that that would be the first step towards international control of arms exports and to preventing any country in future from supplying Saddam Husseins?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that that is a matter for the European Union. It is a matter for individual Governments.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all those in farming and the processing industry were very glad indeed that he was able to make the beef crisis the top priority in his visit to Turin? Could he keep the momentum going? If we are able to get firm decisions by Tuesday or Wednesday, will he make an

announcement, even during the recess, because every day counts in terms of bringing confidence back to the industry and the consumer?

The Prime Minister: I assure my right hon. Friend and the House that the moment we have a conclusion, we will announce that conclusion. If it is in the recess, it will be open to the House to demand a statement from Ministers upon the return of the House. I think that everyone will accept that it is in the interests of the industry to make an announcement as soon as a conclusion is reached. That is our intention.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Prime Minister has recognised the importance of the livestock sector to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am sure that he is also aware of the importance of that sector to Wales, where more than 90 per cent. of agricultural activity is involved in the livestock sector. He has already understood the need for urgent action in teens of a compensation package with our European partners, but can I urge him to do something urgently this week to assist the abattoir owners? He will know that they are laying off workers almost daily. Some of them face enormous financial costs. Is there something that he can do immediately to assist their plight?

The Prime Minister: One of the matters under discussion this morning—I have not yet had a report of how far the discussions have reached, as they are still proceeding—was the allied industries such as the slaughtering industry and abattoirs. I cannot yet tell the hon. Gentleman what has been decided in those discussions. I have not yet heard. But I assure him that the problems of that particular industry have not been overlooked.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing discussed at Turin could conceivably be made part of a referendum in this country? Will he further confirm his disinclination ever to hold a referendum, which he said earlier was not at all part of robust parliamentary procedures? Will he take it from me that many Conservative Members support his initial and present position that no decision has to be taken for many years to come?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that anything is remotely likely to come out that could possibly justify a referendum. We have said that on a number of occasions and I still believe it to be the case. The one area in which there might be a case for a referendum is in any decision taken to join a single currency, since that clearly is not a matter that is likely to be determined before a general election. I can conceive of nothing in the intergovernmental conference that would require a referendum.

Terrorism

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the need to amend the prevention of terrorism Act to strengthen the ability of the police to protect the public against the threat from terrorism.
This House voted to renew the prevention of terrorism Act on 14 March. I spoke then of my sadness and anger that these measures are still necessary to defend the citizens of this country from those who are prepared to engage in acts of terror—to kill and maim in pursuit of their ends.
We face a real threat of a continued IRA campaign of murder. No one should be deceived by the fact that for a few weeks we have had a lull. The IRA ceasefire ended with the South Quay bomb. It was followed by other bombs, one of which was planted and exploded after the announcement of a date for all-party talks. We face a serious threat from terrorism. It is the Government's clear duty to take every step possible to meet that threat.
In recent weeks, I have discussed with senior police officers whether there were any additional powers that would strengthen their ability to safeguard the public. I have listened carefully to points that they made. The proposals that I am announcing today are designed to meet the real needs that they have identified. The additional powers will be accompanied by proper safeguards to ensure that they are used only where there is a real operational requirement. They are essentially practical and technical measures, but I believe that they are necessary changes, which will increase public safety.
I shall be seeking five additions to the powers at present available to the police under the PTA. Four of them will give the police in Great Britain powers comparable to those already available to the police in Northern Ireland. The fifth will extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I have discussed these proposals with Opposition spokesmen. I recognise that all parties have had little time to consider the detail. The hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have indicated to me that they will support these measures, and I am grateful for that support. I particularly welcome the co-operation of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his recognition that these measures represent a responsible and appropriate reaction to the continuing terrorist threat.
The additional powers requested by the police are these. First, I propose to extend the powers of the police under section 13A of the prevention of terrorism Act, to enable them to stop and search pedestrians for terrorist items. That fills a lacuna in the existing powers under section 13A.
That section currently enables an assistant chief constable to authorise searches within a designated area and for a specified time, up to 28 days. Within that area, police officers may then stop pedestrians and search any baggage that they may be carrying, and they may stop a vehicle and search both the vehicle and the people in it. They do not, however, have the power to search a pedestrian to look for devices that he may have concealed about him, for example in a jacket pocket. I believe that they should now be given that power.
I propose that the new power to search pedestrians should be subject to all the safeguards that at present govern the search powers under section 13A. It would be exercisable only after an assistant chief constable had designated a specified area and only for a specified period of up to 28 days. In addition, I propose that authorisation of the power to search pedestrians would require confirmation, within 48 hours, by the Secretary of State. Prosecution for any of the offences connected with the new power would proceed only on the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It may reassure the House to know that the existing stop-and-search powers have been invoked only in the City of London and in the Metropolitan police district in the aftermath of South Quay. In the City, the powers have been applied for the full 28 days allowed on each occasion; in the much larger Metropolitan police district, they have been applied for periods of between seven and 10 days at a time. They remain in force at the moment, and rightly so.
The police are fully aware that this new power will need to be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. I shall ask the independent reviewer of the prevention of terrorism Act to comment particularly on its use in his annual report on the operation of the Act. As the House will know, existing stop-and-search powers under the PTA are subject to the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act code of practice on stop and search. The same arrangements will apply to the new power.
Secondly, I propose a new power for the police to seek a magistrates' warrant to search a list of non-residential premises for material likely to be of use to a terrorist organisation. At present, a warrant can be sought only for a search of particular premises where there are reasonable grounds for believing that terrorist material is present on those premises. The new power would enable the police to respond to intelligence that, for example, a bomb was stored in a lock-up garage or lorry park in a particular area. The magistrates could grant a warrant enabling the police to search a list of premises in that area. The warrant would be issued following an application by a police officer of at least superintendent rank and would have to be executed within 24 hours.
Thirdly, I propose a power for the police to search unaccompanied freight at ports. The law as it stands allows customs officers to search freight to seize contraband, but does not allow the police to search freight for anti-terrorist purposes. That is plainly an anomaly that needs to be remedied. It is the only one of these powers that is not at present available in Northern Ireland. I therefore propose that it should be provided to police across the United Kingdom.
Finally, there are two areas in which the current common law powers require clarification. I propose a new statutory power for the police to cordon off an area. That would be used to restrict access while the police looked for a bomb or while they were collecting forensic evidence following an explosion or following the discovery of a bomb. The current common law powers are uncertain, both as to their extent and as to the length of time for which they can operate. I believe that that uncertainty should be removed.
The power to set up a cordon would be subject to the authorisation of a police officer of superintendent rank. It would be of limited duration. Prosecution for any of the connected offences would proceed only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I also propose a power for the police to impose temporary parking restrictions in response to a general threat to targets such as Government buildings or royal residences. Again, the current common law powers are uncertain and need clear statutory underpinning. That power would also be subject to the authorisation of an assistant chief constable and would be of limited duration. Any resulting prosecutions would be subject to the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
These are clear, practical proposals. The exercise of these powers will be subject to close scrutiny. As amendments to the prevention of terrorism Act, each of the new powers will be subject to annual examination by the independent reviewer and, of course, the Act lapses in its entirety unless it is renewed each year. To help ensure that the police use these additional powers responsibly, I shall issue the appropriate guidance.
I believe that the need for these powers is urgent. I shall accordingly introduce a short Bill tomorrow, which I hope will receive Royal Assent before Parliament rises for Easter. Copies of the draft Bill are available in the Vote Office.
Let me summarise the effect of the new powers. They will enable the police to search pedestrians in a designated area; to search listed non-residential premises; to search freight at ports; and to impose cordons and temporary parking bans. They are sensible practical measures that will be subject to important safeguards. They will help the police to protect our towns and cities and to save lives. I ask the House for its co-operation in placing them on the statute book with the minimum delay.

Mr. Jack Straw: The House has always, and rightly, been very reluctant to allow its normal time scales and procedures to be bypassed, as hasty legislation all too often turns out to be ill drafted and unclear.
We should naturally have preferred rather longer notice than the Secretary of State has given us, and we certainly would have appreciated mention of the proposals during the debate on the prevention of terrorism Act three weeks ago. Any additional anti-terrorist powers are bound, by their very nature, to cause unease. As the Secretary of State indicated in his statement, however, we shall not stand in the way of the timetable motion, and we are satisfied from the security briefing that we have received about the case that is made for the Bill.
The House will, I believe, have little difficulty with four of the five measures contained within the Bill. We accept that it is unfair to the police to expect them to use vague common law powers when they have to cordon off an area during a bomb threat, or to impose parking restrictions around vulnerable buildings. It is plainly right that the police should have the power to search unaccompanied cargo—a power that will simply place the police in a similar position to that enjoyed already by Customs and Excise.
As to the granting of search warrants, will the Secretary of State confirm that the power that he seeks in the Bill will be explicitly restricted to non-residential buildings, typically lock-up garages or industrial units? As for the extension of the powers in section 13A, the Secretary of State will be aware that in 1994 we supported that change to the law, not least because those powers can be triggered only when a police officer of assistant chief constable rank or above designates an area as one subject to a

terrorist threat, and because those limited powers can apply only for a specific period. As the Secretary of State confirmed, in practice there has been one only occasion that has triggered those powers—that following the Canary wharf bomb in early February.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that although the current difference in search powers between vehicle occupants and pedestrians may appear anomalous, there are bound to be anxieties about how a power allowing outer-body searches of pedestrians may be used? I am glad that the Secretary of State has recognised that by including additional safeguards in the draft Bill, which explicitly limit searches to outer garments, hats and shoes, and which require his personal authority for any use of that power for more than 48 hours.
Will the Secretary of State consider two further safeguards, first, that he should report to Parliament regularly about the use of that power and, secondly, that the use of that power should be subject to clear monitoring, as is the parallel power in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his statement is precipitated by the resumption of violence by the Provisional IRA? Will he join me in calling for the immediate resumption of the ceasefire of August 1994? Finally, we shall continue our support for the all-party negotiations that begin on 10 June, which in our view represent the only way to secure a lasting peace in these islands.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the tenor and content of the response by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He asked for a number of specific assurances, all of which I think I am able to give him.
The hon. Gentleman asked for confirmation that the power in relation to the granting of search warrants will be explicitly restricted to non-residential buildings, typically lock-up garages or industrial units. I can confirm that that power will not apply to residential buildings. He asked for recognition that there would be anxieties about the power to allow outer-body searches of pedestrians. I accept that there are such anxieties, which is why I have introduced the particular safeguards to which the hon. Gentleman referred, including the additional safeguard of authorisation by the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman asked for two further safeguards—the regular reporting to Parliament about the exercise of the power and the need for the use of that power to be subject to clear monitoring. I am happy to be able to give him assurances that his requests for those further safeguards can be met.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked for confirmation that my statement has been precipitated by the resumption of violence by the IRA—it has indeed. He asked me to join him in calling for the immediate resumption of the ceasefire of August 1994, and I am happy to do so.
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the Labour party's continued support for the all-party negotiations that are due to begin on 10 June, and I agree with him that that is the only way to secure a lasting peace in these islands.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Home Secretary understand that what he has announced this afternoon will be broadly welcome to the


mass of people in this country? Will he give an undertaking that if, in the use of these new powers, drugs, stolen property, offensive weapons or other smuggled materials are discovered that are nothing to do with terrorism, those discoveries will be followed by prosecutions where that is possible?

Mr. Howard: I can indeed give my right hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks. Where prosecution is appropriate following the discovery of such items, it will take place. It would be absolutely nonsensical, were it to be the case that a search for terrorist items proved unsuccessful, but a large amount of cocaine was found in the pocket of someone apprehended, to ignore that discovery. I have no intention of permitting that to happen, so I am happy to give my right hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary recognise that Liberal Democrats have consistently voted in favour of renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act and will support the additional powers where they can be shown to be necessary and effective? Does he agree that the Bill seeks to clarify the legal basis on which the police already carry out searches and cordons in the case of incidents and will continue to do until new powers reach the statute book?
Does the Home Secretary recognise, however, that in rushing such a complicated Bill through the House in one day he will almost certainly bring about defective and ineffective law, and that the proposed procedure does not give time for outside organisations to consider whether the Bill is effectively drafted? Why cannot we take the Bill in proper stages, by sitting in the House on Thursday? How long is it since the police told him that they wanted these powers? Why did he not publish the Bill at least last week, so that comment could be invited on it?
Is the Home Secretary, fresh from so many defeats in the courts or settlements that he has had to make, setting himself up before the House as an infallible drafter of Bills whose proposals can be waved through without the slightest doubt or reservation—or is his ambition to move to government by decree?

Mr. Howard: It is not true, as a matter of fact, that the powers in the Bill that I propose do no more than to regularise activities in which the police already engage. It may be true in respect of some of those powers; it is certainly not true in respect of all of them.
I confess that I am somewhat astonished by the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should have proceeded in the normal way on Thursday. If we proceeded in the House on Thursday, bearing it in mind that Friday is Good Friday, obviously it would not be possible for the legislation to be on the statute book before the Easter recess.
My responsibility is to ensure that, if these powers have the potential to save one life during the Easter recess, the police are not denied them; that is why I have brought them forward today. I have brought them forward at the earliest opportunity available to me, after discussions and

proper consideration of the requests of the police. That is why they have been brought forward today; that is why I commend them to the House.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the police face a formidable task in tackling the terrorist threat from the IRA, that the House and the country should be deeply grateful for the work that they do and that, if they need more powers, as they have requested, it behoves the House to pass this legislation with all due speed? Can he assure me that the stop-and-search powers that he proposes for pedestrians are sufficiently comprehensive to have the deterrent effect that I believe they could have?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I believe that he spoke not only for his constituents, but for the whole country. I believe that the whole country will recognise the desirability of providing these additional powers. He asked whether the stop-and-search powers are sufficiently comprehensive to constitute a deterrent. They are a measured response to a request from the police. I recognise that one must strike a balance in these matters, and that many matters have to be taken into account. In the light of the seriousness of the threat that we face, the proposals strike that balance.

Mr. Clive Soley: Bearing in mind the dangers of rushed legislation, will the Home Secretary give the House the assurance that he has considered, or the commitment that he will carefully consider, human rights legislation in Europe and Appeal Court decisions, because there is a danger of getting legislation wrong when it is rushed in this way? Secondly, notwithstanding the fact that the prevention of terrorism Act has to be reconsidered and renewed, will he confirm that he will not seek to impose these powers, especially clause 1, on the general law should there be a return to a permanent ceasefire in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Howard: In reply to the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions, may I say that of course we have used our very best endeavours to ensure that the Bill is drafted in such a way as to be utterly consistent with our obligations under the European convention on human rights and with all relevant decisions of the Court of Appeal. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made observations a moment ago about some of the recent decisions by the Court of Appeal. It is not always possible to predict with complete accuracy how the courts will respond in particular circumstances. However, we have used our best endeavours to ensure that the legislation is consistent with relevant decisions of that court.
In terms of the future, in the welcome event, for which I am sure we all very much hope, of a return to peace in Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman will know that the learned Lord Lloyd of Berwick is considering what powers will be necessary. I shall not give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requests, because if Lord Lloyd concluded that powers such as these are necessary in the long term, that view would clearly need to be given the most careful consideration. That will be looked at in the context of Lord Lloyd's report.

Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the powers to which he has referred will be widely understood and accepted by the majority of law-abiding citizens? Can he confirm that the power to stop and search pedestrians is intended to extend the powers of the police to look, in particular, for devices as opposed to the more general run of offensive weapons? Can he amplify his statement that those powers would be subject to the regulations made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I can confirm that the main purpose of the powers to stop and search pedestrians is to enable the police to find incendiary devices. Such devices have been used on a number of occasions and are now of such a size that they fit perfectly easily into a coat pocket. That is the main target of the powers to stop and search pedestrians. In the context of monitoring, the normal PACE powers will apply, as I think was anticipated in my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. David Trimble: As the Home Secretary has said, for the greater part these powers bring the law in England and Wales a little closer to the law in Northern Ireland. However, is it not the case that the way in which the IRA has resumed its campaign makes the point that it does not regard as significant the administrative and legal boundaries within the United Kingdom and that we need a more comprehensive response by the United Kingdom as a whole, and not simply in legislation, but otherwise? Does he agree that there is an overwhelming case simply for a single United Kingdom-wide anti-terrorism Act, directed against not just IRA terrorism but terrorism generally?

Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman will know, that matter is being considered and it will be open to Lord Lloyd to make a recommendation to that effect. The hon. Gentleman demurs from what I say, but I doubt that he would be enthusiastic if I presented on an emergency basis the kind of comprehensive legislation that he seeks. It is sensible to await the deliberations of Lord Lloyd in looking at that aspect of the matter.

Mr. David Howell: While I recognise that the Northern Ireland peace process is not the direct responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend, does he agree that there is very little hope of that peace process working unless terrorism is thoroughly defeated? Does he further agree that that requires counter-terrorist measures of the utmost vigour and imagination and that the measures that he has announced are certainly part of that, with their powers of search and intelligence acquisition? In the light of that, will he look to other Governments who have the same common interest, or say they have, in the defeat of terrorism? Will he urge his opposite number in Dublin to consider the same sort of powers, so that we really can defeat terrorism and see peace go forward in these islands?

Mr. Howard: Of course, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the need for firm and effective counter-terrorist measures. I am grateful to him for his support. I believe that these powers will add significantly to the armoury of the police in dealing with terrorism. The possibility of such powers being introduced in the Republic

of Ireland are, of course, a matter for the Irish Government. I assure my right hon. Friend that discussions on those matters between the two Governments take place quite regularly.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I am one of the Opposition Members who supports the bipartisan approach, but who voted against the prevention of terrorism legislation on the grounds that it contains civil liberties problems and that in many areas it is counter-productive to the peace process. Is not that the case with the measure that is now before the House and which contains some draconian provisions? For example, the 28-day provision might aid the IRA rather than help to contain it.

Mr. Howard: I do not think that any of these provisions would be counter-productive. In many ways, one ought to pay particular attention to the views of the police on that question. They are close to the circumstances in which these powers have to be exercised, and it is not in their interests for the powers to be counter-productive. If that was their view, they would not have requested them.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Either today, or tomorrow during the course of the debate, can my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear whether the new powers under section 13A of the PTA which he hopes to introduce will allow for random searching within the specified area, or must a police constable have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular individual, car or bag contains illegal substances? Can he say whether, during a search of outer garments, when a police officer thinks that there may be devices contained within inner garments, that officer can continue to detain that person for a closer search elsewhere? I support the plea by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that before long, but after proper consideration, an all-UK anti-terrorist law should be introduced.

Mr. Howard: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says about the possibility of all-UK legislation. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Upper Bann, that matter is certainly being considered by Lord Lloyd. Under these proposals, the powers of search allow police officers to search pedestrians without having specific suspicion in relation to those pedestrians. That is really the point of the powers.
My hon. and learned Friend asked about a power to search beyond the outer garments. The Bill does not provide such power: it will depend upon the extent to which the police officer, having carried out a search of the outer garments, has suspicion about the person.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Home Secretary confirm that all the powers that he seeks could have been announced to the House over a fortnight ago, when we were discussing the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act? To ask the House to pass this legislation, which will be subject to a guillotine, on the penultimate day before the recess, without adequate opportunity properly to examine the terms and content of the Bill or to take proper outside advice, would in itself be sufficient ground to vote against the measure. Will the Home Secretary also confirm that the new


powers of stop and search that he suggests would, provided that they are properly authorised, negate section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the last point made by the hon. Gentleman—it is not right at all. Since the introduction of the prevention of terrorism Act, it has been recognised that there is a case for particular measures to deal with the terrorist threat. In relation to an earlier announcement, no decision had been reached on this matter when the prevention of terrorism Act was renewed. In many ways, I should have liked to be able to refer to it when the Act was before the House. However, as no conclusion had been reached on it, and as it was still under discussion and consideration, I did not think that any useful purpose would be served by mentioning it at that stage. It may have been decided not to bring these measures forward.
I have introduced these measures at the earliest opportunity, having reached a conclusion that they were necessary and justified. Once that decision was reached, it was incumbent on me to bring them before the House at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the murder of two young soldiers at Lichfield city railway station is still remembered with sadness by many people in my constituency. The proposals that he has announced today will be welcomed in Lichfield and Mid-Staffordshire as a whole. Does he believe that there will be any delays or difficulties because of the provision that he has announced today, that there would have to be approval by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for police constables to have stop-and-search powers for more than 48 hours?
My right hon. and learned Friend has had discussions with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Therefore, does he know whether the Labour party will vote for the provision, abstain or vote against it, as it did for the prevention of terrorism Act?

Mr. Howard: The dreadful murders to which my hon. Friend referred are remembered far beyond Lichfield and Mid-Staffordshire. We shall take every possible step to prevent a recurrence of acts of that kind, which is why we have brought forward these proposals. The authorisation of the Secretary of State will not negate the ability of the police to exercise the powers during the 48-hour period, which have to be confirmed within the 48-hour period. If they are not confirmed, they will fall when the Secretary of State announces his decision. Until that moment, those powers are available for use by the police.
In relation to the Labour party's attitude, I have acknowledged the extent to which it is prepared to co-operate, and my understanding is that it does not intend to stand in the way of the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn for what he said, and tomorrow we shall see the precise form of that co-operation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Home Secretary agree that this is a draconian measure? If it is logical to rush it through the House

tomorrow, so that it is in place for the Easter recess—as the Home Secretary said—would it not be logical to time-limit the Act so that it lasted for only three months? The House would then be able to return to it and legislate more slowly and more carefully. The powers to stop and search and the powers to stop people having access to their own homes are draconian. It would be logical to scrutinise such powers very carefully.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not sensible. If concerns develop about the operation of these powers—and I do not expect them to—there will be ample opportunities for hon. Members to express those concerns, without going to the lengths suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Max Madden: If these powers are so important for the police, to enable them to combat terrorism, many of us are finding it hard to understand what has happened or who has intervened to make this issue so urgent for tomorrow. Why on earth could not the Home Secretary at least have hinted at it when the PTA was debated on 14 March? It is clear that these provisions are draconian and, as always, they will bear disproportionately on working-class communities throughout the United Kingdom.
If the Home Secretary really wants to see a restoration of the ceasefire, why does he not repatriate Irish prisoners to the Republic of Ireland, which he has been able to do for the past five months but has failed to do so far—instead of ferreting around and trying to find measures of this sort to restore his extremely damaged reputation?

Mr. Howard: The purpose of these powers is to protect working-class communities in this country—and I think that they will recognise that and value the extra protection that the powers will provide.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary recognise that many people do not think that the PTA has served the country well and believe that it is a serious attack on the civil liberties of a large number of people? The amendments that he has proposed today—to be rushed through in an atmosphere of crisis tomorrow—amount to a return of the sus laws by the back door, with an open-ended commitment to keep those new powers there when surely, as a confidence-building measure towards the peace process, we should be getting rid of the PTA and the anti-libertarian aspects that go with it.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but I think that it is not widely shared outside the House, and it certainly is not widely shared inside the House. This is not, in any sense, a return to the sus law—and it is quite wrong to give any indication that it is. These are tightly restricted powers, available on the designation of a particular area, for a particular time, in particular circumstances, by a senior police officer. Although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman holds his views strongly, he has served no useful purpose in seeking to confuse people about the extent of the powers that I propose. The powers are very limited and they are not, in any sense, a return to the sus laws.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Ordinary people, especially those who live in my constituency around Heathrow, will support the measures. I am getting a little sick and tired of the apologists for terrorists on the Labour Benches trying to undermine my right hon. and learned Friend's job.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I believe that these measures are necessary and that they constitute a balanced response to the threat that we face. I very much hope that they will gain support from both sides of the House.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement. In the light of the statement just made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the business for tomorrow will now be as follows: consideration of timetable motion on, followed by proceedings on, the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill. The business previously announced for that day will be taken on a later occasion.
On Wednesday 3 April, in addition to the business previously announced, the House may be asked to consider any Lords amendments that may be received. The House will also wish to know that the business on Tuesday 16 April will now be the Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us that information, and I confirm that the Labour party will not stand in the way of the legislation that has been announced today. Obviously, the lack of time for greater consultation is very much regretted, certainly by the Labour party and, I hope, by both sides of the Chamber. Notwithstanding that, we are willing to facilitate the passage of the limited legislation on the time scale proposed.
However, we certainly do not want our co-operation on this measure to be taken as a precedent on any other occasion. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear, the Labour party is seized of the importance of fighting terrorism. It is on the basis of the security briefings that have been given that we are facilitating the measure and that we accept the unusual procedures that the Leader of the House has put forward.
The right hon. Gentleman said that tomorrow's business would have to be postponed, but he was not very definite about when we might expect the particular clauses of the Family Law Bill to be debated. Those clauses are of importance to many hon. Members, and early notification of when they are to be debated would be of assistance to all of them.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the very constructive response that the hon. Lady has given on behalf of the Labour party, matching that given by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I note the comments that she made in expressing that co-operation. I, too, had hoped that it would be possible to proceed with the Family Law Bill tomorrow, but I have already announced a full slate of business for the first week when we return. I hope that we shall be able to proceed with it very soon thereafter.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the statement today, not least because, as my right hon. Friend may remember, I took him to task during the previous business statement for rushing through the divorce Bill. The various Christian organisations that wrote—at least one wrote to the Prime Minister—to object to the speed will also welcome today's announcement.
I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), which is important, because we feel that the Bill is a vital social measure. Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise—this is an important opportunity for him to do so—that the Bill will be brought back at a time when hon. Members are not rushing back from their holidays; when they are not rushing off at the end of the week, perhaps after a one-line Whip or anything like that; that votes will be taken at a sensible time; and that all hon. Members, on the pay roll and otherwise, will have a full and free vote, so that the Government cannot be accused of rushing through quickie divorce legislation?

Mr. Newton: It would be pretty hard to accuse the Government convincingly of rushing the Family Law Bill through, as I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend last Thursday. I note, however, that one advantage—from his point of view—of what I have just announced is that the Bill will now take a little more time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the controversial nature of the Government's proposals for dealing with the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill, will there will be a business committee, on which all parties would be represented, to discuss the way in which the measure is handled?
The Bill has five clauses and one schedule. Will the Leader of the House undertake to provide considerably more time than two hours to debate them? Will he undertake that there will be a separation between the time when the House is asked to deal with the Bill in Committee and when it is asked to deal with its remaining stages? Will he ensure that all hon. Members are provided with printed copies of any amendments?
If the Bill is so urgent and important, will the Leader of the House reconsider the answer that the Home Secretary gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and consider using the guillotine motion so that the Bill has its Second Reading tomorrow, we debate the remaining stages on Wednesday and the other place deals with the Bill on Thursday, still ensuring Royal Assent before Easter?

Mr. Newton: I would not wish to encourage the expectation that a proposal that would entail the other place sitting later into the week could readily be accommodated.
I shall, of course, consider the other questions that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I am bound to say that we gave a great deal of thought to the proposals for the guillotine motion, which I know have been indicated through the usual channels. I continue to think for the moment that we have it about right.
I shall certainly consider the point raised about the printing of amendments, but given the form in which the Bill will come before the House tomorrow, following its draft publication today, I find it a bit difficult to see any real scope for dealing with amendments except on the basis of manuscript amendments.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know that I am pleased that the Family

Law Bill has been postponed. Having said that, I welcome the Bill tomorrow. Some say that it infringes civil liberties and that there has not been enough time. I remind the Leader of the House, and, indeed, the House, that the people who were at South Quay station had less warning when they were sent into eternity, and many people have had their civil liberties infringed permanently.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the approach that he outlined. He makes a salutary point.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House tell us when the timetable motion will be tabled, so that we can all see it? Will it be possible for amendments to the draft Bill to be given to the Table Office, so that at least we can see tonight what amendments other hon. Members are tabling, rather than having to wait until the manuscript amendments appear in the morning?

Mr. Newton: I envisage that the timetable motion will be tabled later tonight, but we have been asked to look at one or two points. Although I do not think that I have encouraged great expectations that I shall be able to make changes, I would like to give further consideration in the light of what has been said.
Perhaps I might consult further on the hon. Gentleman's question about amendments. Given that what has been published is in draft form and therefore is not formally a Bill, I find it difficult to see how the procedures of the House will be able to accommodate some formal procedure relating to amendments, but I shall give consideration to whether there are any practical means of achieving what the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two things? First, if we can have a draft Bill, why cannot we have printed draft amendments tomorrow morning? Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is the right hon. Gentleman's shadow, spoke about briefings that had been given, which persuaded them of the need to pass this legislation. As neither of my hon. Friends is a Privy Councillor, and in view of the fact that the Leader of the House wishes the whole House to support the proposed legislation, should not every hon. Member be given the same briefings at the same level and in the same detail, so that we can judge whether what has been decided by the Government and by my hon. Friends is a sensible course of action?

Mr. Newton: On the latter point, it is and has been appropriate to treat the hon. Member for Blackburn, albeit that he is not a Privy Councillor, in the way that the Government have sought to do. I am not sure that it would be appropriate to move in the same way in respect of all hon. Members.
On the publishing of draft amendments, the only point that I was making was that I do not think that there can formally be the publication by the House of draft amendments, any more than the publication of the draft Bill is a formal act in House of Commons terms. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is publishing a draft Bill. There is certainly nothing to prevent hon.


Members who wish to table amendments from making their amendments available in manuscript, printed or any other form if they wish to do so later today.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I want to raise exactly the same point as the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I am not aware that draft amendments have been made available to the House in this way before, but I cannot see any possible way in which it could be objected to. It seems a thoroughly commendable way in which the House could proceed. If the Table Office is asked to consider draft amendments on the basis of the draft Bill, I cannot see any good reason why they should not be published by the House with the authority of Madam Speaker. I cannot think why nobody has ever thought of it before, because it seems an excellent idea.

Mr. Newton: I naturally listen to my right hon. Friend, with his experience, with great respect. I have already indicated that I shall do anything that I can to find a practical way to meet what is seen as a practical need, but it has to be said, on my advice and on the body language from the Chair and from those who advise the Chair, that the draft Bill has no formal status in terms of House of Commons procedure.

Mr. Max Madden: Recalling that the PTA was initially introduced in 1974 in the aftermath of the terrible Birmingham pub bombings and that it was taken through all its stages in less than 48 hours—it was then described as a temporary measure—I think that it is disturbing that the Government propose to do precisely the same thing tomorrow. Will whoever promotes the Bill be able to give an explanation—clearly, none is available today—as to why this panic measure, which has serious implications for human rights and civil liberties, is being rushed through the House in this way? I hope that that explanation will be forthcoming tomorrow, because if it is not, I am sure that a number of hon. Members, including myself, will be unable to support the measure and will vote against it, not least because of the circumstances in which it is being taken through the House.

Mr. Newton: I naturally regret the hon. Gentleman's indication of his intentions, but that must be a matter for him.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary clearly explained the reasons to the House in his statement.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Leader of the House accept that he and the Home Secretary have got the House into this mess by introducing the Bill, albeit in a draft unprinted form, so that many hon. Members do not even know of its existence, never mind its content? The Leader of the House is now telling us, apparently, that there is no scope to table full amendments today which can appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. Will he please do something quickly to ensure that the House can perform its proper function: the scrutiny of legislation before it is passed, not acting as a rubber stamp for whatever panic the Home Secretary of the day chooses to create?

Mr. Newton: I cannot really add to what I said earlier about the technicalities. The fact is that, from the point of view of the House, the Bill has not yet been introduced, and will not be introduced until tomorrow. Nevertheless, I repeat that as soon as I leave the Chamber I shall explore whether there are practical ways of achieving the same effect, although they would not involve the formal publication of draft amendments by the authorities of the House.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you be making a statement later this evening or tomorrow about the means by which hon. Members can table amendments to the Bill proposed by the Home Secretary, so that all hon. Members can be aware of them before the debate on the timetable motion tomorrow? Will you be able to give your selection of those amendments in advance of the debate?

Madam Speaker: It is not my intention at present to do so, but, following what the Leader of the House has said, I must consider the matter carefully. I would want all hon. Members to have as much opportunity as possible to table amendments, and to see the amendments that are published.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I cannot take any more points of order on this matter.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Madam Speaker: All right.

Mr. Barnes: We have been informed, Madam Speaker, that a draft Bill is available to us. Is that in order? I understand that First and Second Reading will take place tomorrow. Under the normal procedure, First Reading would give permission for the Bill to be printed, after which it would be available to us. Are we engaging in the correct procedure?

Madam Speaker: There is nothing out of order in that procedure.

Mr. McNamara: May I pursue the point that you were making earlier, Madam Speaker? As hon. Members may recall, there is a precedent: a manuscript Bill has been considered by the House. At that time, however, we encountered major difficulties in getting amendments selected by either the then Speaker or the then Chairman of Ways and Means. The only amendment with which we succeeded asked for the Bill to be examined again in six months. Because of the nature of this Bill, Madam Speaker, may I ask you to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means—who will presumably be responsible for the matter—to bear in mind the difficulties that Back Benchers will encounter?

Madam Speaker: Certainly. I take the hon. Gentleman's point very seriously, and as soon as I have left the Chair, I shall take it into consideration and do what I can to assist all Back Benchers in relation to amendments that they might wish to table.

BILL PRESENTED

CYPRUS (COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY INTO MISSING PERSONS)

Mr. Edward O'Hara, supported by Mr. John Marshall, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Alan Meale, Dr. Ian Twinn, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to establish a Commission of Enquiry to take evidence and make recommendations concerning the establishment of the whereabouts of certain missing persons and to authorise the provision of assistance in the conduct of any investigations into those matters carried out by the authorities on the island of Cyprus; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

Opposition Day

9TH ALLOTTED DAY

Council Tax

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's policies which have forced local councils to increase council tax and charges while reducing services, so obliging local people to pay more and get less; notes that Her Majesty's Government intends to continue to do this year on year; and urges the people of England to bear this in mind when casting their votes in the forthcoming local elections.
At the last general election, the Conservative party warned people that there would be a tax bombshell if Labour were elected. The Tories were elected, and people received not just one tax bombshell; up to now, they have received 22. Twenty-two tax increases or new taxes have been imposed on them. All those taxes have been imposed nationally, at an average cost per family of £670 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself acknowledged that the effect of the increases has been to add the equivalent of 7p to the standard rate of income tax.
The Government have now announced a 1p reduction in the standard rate of income tax, coming into effect around now. I suppose that everyone should welcome the sinner that repenteth, but it is worth reminding the House that the 1p reduction does not wipe out the 7p increase; 6p is still outstanding. There is also doubt about whether the Government have actually repented. At the same time as reducing the standard rate of income tax by 1p, they are knowingly and deliberately forcing up the council tax.
Giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury accepted that the Treasury was assuming an average council tax increase of 8 per cent. in making its plans. Had the average increase been 8 per cent., that would have been equal to about 0.5p back on the standard rate of income tax: it would have taken away half the 1p by which the Government claim to be reducing the rate. The Government are deliberately driving up the council tax and driving up charges for council services, while forcing cuts in services to local people. As a consequence, local people will be expected to pay more and will be given less in return.
As it turned out, the average increase was not as bad as the Treasury had planned for. It was not the 8 per cent. predicted by the Chief Secretary, but 6.2 or 6.3 per cent., depending on whose calculation we accept. That increase, however, masks many enormous variations in the changes. In Wellingborough, for instance, the council tax increase is no less than 58 per cent., whereas in Labour-controlled Middlesbrough there has been a reduction of nearly 16 per cent. Lest I be accused of political prejudice, I should add that, in the Prime Minister's constituency, there will not be an increase of 6.3 per cent.; his Tory council—he is almost unique


among Tory Members in having one of the 13 Tory-controlled councils in his constituency—is raising its council tax by 10.1 per cent.
It is clear from the settlement that, as everyone has known all along, the main determinant of council tax levels and changes, whether up or down, is the level of the Government grant.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman says that the determining factor is the level of the Government grant, and suggests that that grant is inadequate. How much extra does he feel should be put into the coffers in the settlement?

Mr. Dobson: It is not just the level of the grant; it is the distribution of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I will answer questions in the way in which I want to answer them. Everyone knows that there are two determinants: one is the overall level, and the other is the method of allocation.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I am answering one question; I am not prepared to answer two at once.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) may be satisfied with the present arrangements for the allocation of grant between one council and another, but I doubt whether his constituents are. He voted for a settlement that means that council tax payers in Westminster contribute only 4 per cent. to the council's total spending, while his constituents in Brentwood must contribute no less than 37 per cent. of the cost of services there. That clearly shows just how unfair and rigged is the distribution system.

Mr. Pickles: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if Camden council received the same grant level as Tower Hamlets, this year the increase in the charge would be only £50, that, if Islington received the same grant level, the increase would be £53, but that, if Wandsworth council received that grant level, the council tax would go down? Why has he let down the people of Camden?

Mr. Dobson: As everyone knows, Tower Hamlets is one of the most impoverished places in Britain and it is right and proper that it should receive a substantial grant from central Government. It does not, however—unlike Westminster—receive 96 per cent. of its spending from central Government; it receives a lower proportion than that. Everyone recognises that Tower Hamlets is impoverished and that, in identifying Westminster as the fourth most impoverished place in Britain, the Government are just a collection of swindlers looking after their friends.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): If that were true, why is it that, under Labour Governments, advised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), Westminster council received proportionately a more favourable settlement than under Conservative Governments? If it is wrong for Conservative Governments to give the settlement that they

have, why is it that Labour was more helpful to Westminster than the Tories? The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his last statement or apply it to himself.

Mr. Dobson: We are advised by the House of Commons Library that no published figures justify what the Secretary of State says. If he believes that, under Labour, the system was more favourable to Westminster, will he publish the figures?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of the things that is worth remembering, apart from all the percentages that show clearly that, over many years, the two so-called Tory flagship authorities have benefited as opposed to councils in Derbyshire and in other places, is that people who run the services are being impoverished. On Saturday, several of us met Derbyshire members of the Fire Brigades Union, who told us that, sadly, its firefighting budget is to be cut by about 7 per cent. Every time there is a calamity or a disaster, Ministers praise the work of firefighters, yet in Derbyshire, the FBU's budget is being cut by 7 per cent. and some stations are being closed. That is the reality of this lousy, rotten Tory Government, not all the banging on about looking after Westminster.

Mr. Dobson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says and I shall refer to the cuts that the Government are forcing on the fire and emergency services throughout Britain.

Mr. Gummer: In order that the hon. Gentleman should be helped, I will give him the figures. When the Labour party was in power, the Labour Government estimated Westminster's need per head as £486, whereas Liverpool's need per head was estimated at £327, a difference of 49 per cent. Westminster's standard spending assessment will be £1,265 per head compared with £944 for Liverpool, a difference of only 34 per cent. Under Labour, therefore, Westminster was favoured by 49 per cent. and, under the Conservatives, by 34 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should obtain those figures. They are in the public domain.

Mr. Dobson: For a start, the Secretary of State is totally misleading the House. It is not just a question of the standard spending assessments. Let me make this clear—I am quoting figures that are used by Westminster's chief executive, or whatever he is called these days in that benighted plague ship of the Tory party. He says that Tory-controlled Westminster is receiving £20 million more than it is entitled to. The main reason for that is that it receives an enormous grant in respect of visitors to Westminster and between £20 million and £30 million a year from parking charges from those self-same visitors—that income from parking charges is added to the grant that it receives from the visitors, not subtracted from it. It is a racket conducted at the expense of everyone else. It is no good all these Tory Members shilly-shallying about it. They must explain to their constituents why, year in year out, they vote for that racket to benefit Westminster to the disadvantage of the people whom they are supposed to be representing.

Mr. William O'Brien: May I advise my hon. Friend that recent performance indicators show that Wakefield's spending per head of population is the lowest


among metropolitan district councils because of the way in which the rate support grant is allocated? As we have as much, or more, deprivation than Westminster, will he provoke the Secretary of State for the Environment to say why Wakefield should be worse off under the rate support grant order than Westminster?

Mr. Dobson: I do not think that my hon. Friend will ever get the Secretary of State to admit even that Wakefield is worse off because, as he must, the Secretary of State proceeds under the theological assumption that Westminster is the fourth most deprived place in Britain. Let us all remember that, in the system that he is running, not only the resident population, but, for grant purposes, the visitors are regarded as the fourth most deprived people in Britain, so, as I have said before, tonight, 12 per cent. of the people staying at the Ritz hotel will be regarded, for Government grant purposes for Westminster, as living in grossly overcrowded conditions. That is how the Government arrive at such figures.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: While on the subject of the use of car parking charges, to what does the hon. Gentleman's own London borough of Camden apply its car park charges and in what way does that differ from the practice in Westminster?

Mr. Dobson: The practice in Camden does not vary from that in Westminster. It is just that the sum is enormously lower. I am suggesting not that the formula does not allow Bolsover council to take parking charges and to spend them, but that the Government have cobbled together a formula that gives parking charges to the borough that receives far more parking charges than probably the next 20 put together, with the veritable intention of ensuring that Westminster is all right and that Bolsover gets clobbered.

Mr. Skinner: It is even worse than that. We have tourists in Bolsover. As many people know, we have Harwick hall and Bolsover castle and English Heritage has just been taken over by a French firm. The Government have allowed the French to invade Bolsover castle, so all the parking charges are going back to France.

Mr. Dobson: Nothing surprises me. When we have the French taking over Northumbria Water and such companies, we can expect them to be taking over Bolsover castle as well.

Mr. David Rendel: Far be it from me to interfere in a spat between the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the Secretary of State might have been making an odd comparison in comparing the figures under Labour with the figures now because local councils' duties have changed since then. I would have thought that the extra duties imposed on them would be expected to be roughly the same per person in each council. Therefore, the absolute difference in grants to different councils between the time Labour was in power and now should be compared rather than the proportional difference.

Mr. Dobson: Oddly enough, I had not even reached Westminster in my speech. I was going to demonstrate that, even without any political prejudice—which of course the Government are full of—their system of allocating grant is widely capricious. There is no better way in which to demonstrate—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Dobson: No; I shall move on.
There is no better way in which to demonstrate the inherently capricious, unpredictable and rather weird nature of the Government's grant system than the council tax increases in the new unitary authorities. Those authorities, which used to be lower-tier district councils, have taken over from county councils—three of which have been abolished—and, in the case of York, taken over from North Yorkshire county council, the provision of extensive services and the control of enormous budgets for education and social services.
The size of those authorities' budgets is massively greater than it used to be. The councils have no track record on which anyone could base a real and sensible proposition for allocating funds in a way which militated against one council or in favour of another. However, the differences in council tax increases in the new unitary authorities are quite startling. The range is amazing: 31 per cent. in north-east Lincolnshire; 14 per cent. in Redcar, Cleveland; 13 per cent. in Bristol; 10 per cent. in Hartlepool; 9 per cent. in East Riding; and 8 per cent. in Stockton-on-Tees. Other Labour-controlled unitary authorities have council tax reductions: Middlesbrough—which is literally next door to Stockton-on-Tees—has a reduction of 5.8 per cent., and Hull has one of 10 per cent. There is no rational explanation for those differences.
The Government have absolutely refused to take on board any of the complaints that have been made about the inadequate and capricious nature of those arrangements.

Mr. Hughes: I have heard the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues quote, with great praise, Rita Hale from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, and Tony Travers from the London School of Economics. I think that most of us would accept that they know more about local government finance than anyone else in this country. They say that our grant system goes further to achieve equalisation than any other scheme in the world. That being the case, is not the hon. Gentleman just indulging in silly and stupid political banter?

Mr. Dobson: I must say that I have never felt compelled to agree with experts. I think that some Ministers probably think that they should not have agreed too slavishly with experts about the safety of beef and about various other things. We are not here to parrot what experts say, we are here to make some judgments. Whatever experts say, the current system is unfair in making grants to many authorities and it is unfair in the amount of grant Westminster receives in comparison with practically every other authority.

Mr. Gummer: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why, if the system is as unfair as that, the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) said in her interview in the Local Government Chronicle that she could not promise any major change in it?

Ms Hilary Armstrong: In the early days.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, being a prudent person—unlike the Secretary of State, the Ronald McDonald of the Tory Front Bench—said that no change could be expected in the early days of a Labour Government. She is quite right; it takes a long time to put right things that are as badly wrong as local government finance.

Mr. Gummer: Just in case the House might have been misled, the hon. Lady told the Local Government Chronicle:
I would not like to promise major changes".
She said nothing about early days or anything like that.

Mr. Dobson: Quite frankly, I would rather take the word of my hon. Friend than the word of the Secretary of State—of that I have no doubt whatever.
The fact is that, considered nationally, the Government are driving up council taxes, and in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it quite clear that the Government are doing that intentionally. Council tax is being driven up because the Government grant does not meet the increased costs imposed by inflation, pay increases and increased demand for council services because of the extra 86,000 children, for example, who will be going to school in the coming year and the increasing number of old people who—having paid in tax of one sort or another and national insurance all their lives—rightly expect that they will be looked after properly by their local authorities.
The Government payment and the Government grant also do not meet the costs of implementing various legal changes, such as the introduction of the landfill tax and the requirement to instal seat belts on school buses. It is quite right that there should be a landfill tax. It is also quite right that seat belts should be installed in school buses—a cause for which I have campaigned for a dozen years or more, and I will not go back on it—but it will cost money. As a result of the shortfall in what councils must spend to maintain services, they must meet the difference by council tax increases, charge increases and service cuts.
Last year, council tax rose by 5.3 per cent. This year, it will rise by an average 6.3 per cent. We have also experienced increased charges. It is perhaps worth reminding the House that school meal prices are still going up. In many areas, they now exceed £1 per child per day. When the Government first came to power, the charge was 20p per child per day, far larger numbers of children were eligible for free meals and councils had more discretion in granting free meals to the most impoverished children.
It might also be worth reminding the House that this Government, at the same time as they got rid of a national price for school meals, got rid of national nutritional standards for school meals. One result of that action has been a massive increase in consumption of less-healthy foods at school and in the number of children eating burgers, day after day, causing whatever harm or otherwise to their health.
There have been massive cuts in services all over the country—reductions in the availability of luncheon clubs for old people, libraries closing and libraries opening for

fewer hours and swimming baths closing. Aspects of schooling that I had regarded, when I was at school, as part and parcel of that experience and as one of the benefits of being a child—such as music, sport and swimming—have been eliminated from the curriculum because the money is not there to fund them. There are examples of such programmes being eliminated all over the country.
Local authorities are having to make difficult, awkward and unpleasant decisions, which have been forced on them by the Government. I shall give just a few examples. First, the great city of Birmingham—a credit to this country—built the international convention centre, a joint project which provided the city with a brilliant convention centre and the country with a state-of-the-art facility. Virtually every member of the Government, certainly including the Prime Minister, vilified the convention centre up hill and down dale—until they needed somewhere in England to go for the European Heads of Government conference.
Lo and behold, the Government chose the international convention centre in Birmingham for their conference because it was the best place for it and because the television pictures, broadcast around Europe, would be a credit to Britain. The communications were absolutely first rate. As soon as Ministers came away from the conference—this collection of bumbling hypocrites—they immediately started complaining and groaning about Birmingham having built an international convention centre. Birmingham has also led the way in introducing many education initiatives to the benefit of the city's children.
Birmingham city council has had to take many difficult decisions this year. The Government increased Birmingham's spending limit by £23 million, but the Government's grant to Birmingham, including the business rate, increased by only £6 million. The Government acknowledged that Birmingham needed to spend £23 million more but gave it only £6 million towards that sum—the other £17 million must therefore come from increased taxes. That, however, is not the end of the story.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: Not yet; I shall finish this point.
The teachers' pay award, which the Government decide, was fixed at 3.1 per cent. This year, that will cost Birmingham an extra £9 million. Other pay and price increases will cost Birmingham an extra £21 million. Birmingham will have to find an extra £5.5 million to pay for the implementation of new legislation on pensions and waste disposal. Increases in the number of school children and elderly people in Birmingham will cost £5 million, yet the capital available for school buildings in Birmingham has been reduced by 40 per cent. The budget shortfall will cost 727 council jobs. Birmingham made savings of £20 million but still had to increase its council tax.

Mr. Mans: In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about Birmingham's spending limit, is it now Labour party policy to encourage all local authorities to spend up to their limit?

Mr. Dobson: As far as I know, it appears to be the Government's policy. I understand that speakers at successive Tory local government conferences have said that setting capping limits and such like has had the effect, even in Tory areas, of encouraging councils to spend up to their limit, which they might not have done if such limits had not been set. That may or may not be true, but it was certainly said at Tory conferences. The hon. Gentleman might be a better judge of whether what is said at Tory conferences is true, as he attends them more frequently.
The Government's revenue support grant for Greenwich has been cut by £4.13 million, and the council has held its increases in expenditure to just 1 per cent. although inflation in its services is running at about 3 per cent. Total Government support for Hackney has been cut by £5.2 million, the bulk of which represents a reduction in the money available for education in that borough. Tamworth, despite facing a by-election, has seen a reduction of £141,000, and the great city of Newcastle upon Tyne has had its rate support grant cut by £1.3 million.
I could go on and on citing examples of cuts that have been made, but I do not want to trouble the House by listing them at enormous length. All hon. Members know from their constituency experience that there have been local tax increases, increased charges and cuts in services, but that is not the end of the story.
This year's increase in taxes is not the only increase that the Government have in mind. On the day of the Budget, the Department of the Environment published figures showing that the Government expected the total amount of money taken from council tax payers to increase by £3.5 billion over the coming three years. That equals an increase of almost 2p in the standard rate of income tax—that 2p increase would raise the same sum of money from ordinary people as the £3.5 billion that the Government expect, were they to stay in power, to raise from council tax payers in the next three years.
That, of course, is not the only sign of the Tory commitment to increase council taxes. The former head of local government finance at the Department of the Environment said:
Ministers want to increase the proportion of council tax spending from 21 to 26 per cent. by 1998–99 … The downside is that your taxes go up sharply".
That is certainly happening and was confirmed recently by the deputy secretary at the Department of the Environment in his evidence to a House of Lords Committee on relations between central and local government. He said of a 25 per cent. contribution on average from the council tax towards council services that it was
as much as I felt the council tax could properly bear".

Mr. Pickles: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the council tax in Camden would be lower if the council collected it and reached the average collection rate? Does he think that it would be lower in Haringey if it were collected there? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the top 10 councils that collect the least taxes are Labour authorities and that they are responsible for £90 million

of uncollected resources? Does he believe that the council tax could be reduced and services improved in such areas if the authorities collected the money?

Mr. Dobson: There is certainly scope for improvement in council tax collection—[Interruption.] I am answering the question. There is scope for improvement in the rate of council tax collection—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about collecting rents?

Mr. Dobson: And rent collection for that matter. If we are to bandy facts around, I have to say that the only reason why Brent does not feature in the lists of councils with massive council tax and rent arrears is that Brent has written them off to make the figures look better. As everyone knows—this of course applies to Brent—in areas where the people are predominantly poor, it is bound to follow that it will be harder to get rent and council tax out of them, as they find it hard to pay. There will always be some relationship between the standard of living and the level of income in an area and the council's capacity to collect taxes.
One line that the Government have been peddling—the Secretary of State has been doing the same—is that they would provide more money for schools. If more money is being provided for schools, it is no thanks to the Government. The Government have allowed councils to spend more of their own money on schools but have not provided any extra if we take into account inflation, the cost of pay increases and the increased number of pupils to which I have already referred.

Mr. Den Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: Hold on a minute. It is worth remembering that the Government have acknowledged that there was not enough money to cover the pay increases. They have had to accept that the teachers' pay increase should be phased in because councils would not have enough to pay it outright. That is an admission by the Government that the funds would simply not be available.
I make it clear that if, in the coming year, education authorities were to spend on schools what the Government think ought to be spent on schools, there would be not an increase in spending but a reduction of, on average, £41 per pupil across the country compared with the year just finished. I repeat that if education authorities spent to the Government's target in the coming year, there would be not an increase but an average decrease of £41 per pupil.

Mr. Dover: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lancashire council scaremongered and said that this year there would be a further reduction on school spending of 8 per cent. on top of a cut of 5 per cent. last year? The Government have in fact given £26 million extra to Lancashire this year and, at long last, the chairman of the education committee has admitted that there will be a real increase in spending, which is quite different from the scare stories that he was spreading a few months ago.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Scandalous.

Mr. Dobson: Compared with Conservative Members, it beggars belief to refer to anybody in the Labour party as scandalous when it comes to scaremongering. I do not have at my fingertips figures on the circumstances prevailing in Lancashire. All I know is that, generally speaking, Lancashire county council has been trying hard to provide decent services to the people of Lancashire and has been making a pretty good fist of it. It is a pity that it has not had more help from the Government—or, from time to time, more help from Tory Members representing Lancashire constituencies in arguing with the Government to get some resources for the county.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not a fact that Lancashire, like Derbyshire, has the largest primary classes of any English shire—an average of 27.9 pupils across the whole area? That is indicative of its financial problems as a result of the Government.

Mr. Dobson: I freely admit that my hon. Friend, who is very familiar with Derbyshire and who has obviously been looking around for comparisons and spotted that Lancashire is in similar circumstances, displays more expertise on the matter than I. I congratulate him on pointing that out.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the reason why class numbers are high in some parts of Lancashire is that, unfortunately, the county council chooses to keep open surplus places in east and central Lancashire secondary schools, where the population is falling, thus depriving north Lancashire of teachers that it should have.

Mr. Dobson: One of the problems that education authorities face these days in getting rid of surplus classes, or indeed surplus schools, is the possibility that when they try to take the sort of action for which the hon. Lady seems to be calling, the people in the schools concerned will go rushing to the Secretary of State to say, "Can we opt out?", and that there is a reasonable chance that, on base political grounds, the Secretary of State will agree. Virtually everybody connected with education, including some officials at the Department for Education and Employment, acknowledge that that is true. I suspect that even some officials at the Department of the Environment might think that it is true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised the question of Derbyshire's fire service settlement. I must repeat to Conservative Members that, unless they happened to be absent for the vote, they voted for the general local government settlement. It is worth reminding them what that settlement has provided for fire authorities around the country. The Tyne and Wear authority will have £2.3 million less to spend than it had last year on the fire service. In Wiltshire, although the deficit is just £260,000, it is not a large brigade and that is quite a lot of money. On Merseyside, the cuts contemplated range from £2 million to £6 million. In Cambridgeshire, the figure is £700,000. In Essex, Labour county councillors have proposed cuts of £1.5 million, but Conservatives and Liberals are still gnawing on the bone over whether to make much bigger cuts and reduce spending on the fire service by between £3 million and £4 million.
In the west midlands, councils are discussing how to reduce spending by £4.7 million. In Greater Manchester, £2 million is having to be found through cuts. In Nottinghamshire, fire service spending is being cut by £80,000. North Yorkshire is looking at a total reduction of £3 million over three years. Difficulties in Humberside have been exacerbated by the disappearance of the county and all the uncertainty surrounding it. In Derbyshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out, a reduction of £700,000 is being looked at. Surrey is considering a reduction of £2.5 million in fire service spending over three years. I have not got the figures for Buckinghamshire, but I know that it has decided to close three rescue units. In Hampshire, there is a reduction of £500,000, and in Greater London the cuts amount to £8 million.
Everybody in the country knows that Tory Members of Parliament and Tory Governments play fast and loose with people's safety, but they are not entitled to play fast and loose with people's safety when it comes to the fire and emergency services. Nor are they are entitled to play fast and loose with the safety of firefighters who risk their lives daily for the rest of us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover also pointed out, when there is an emergency, Ministers leap to the Dispatch Box to pay tribute to the emergency services. Some of the people in the emergency services feel that it would not be too bad if they were paid some pay from time to time.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I compliment my hon. Friend on his points about the fire service. He did not mention West Yorkshire, but I am sure that he would have done if time had permitted. West Yorkshire has minimum fire cover, the reserves are all spent, and in Bradford, which has a population of 490,000, there is one high turntable ladder, which cannot assist in emergencies at high-rise flats.

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point. All the cuts may seem fine to people with clipboards and stop-watches—accountants and various other people—but they do not look too good to someone whose house, whose neighbour's house or whose place of work is burning down.
The other thing about which there is nothing new is how the Government have rigged the grant system. As I have said, they have rigged it in favour of Westminster. All that grant-rigging is still based on the assessment of deprivation. The Government, inspired, no doubt, and advised by experts, have concluded that Westminster is the fourth most deprived place in Britain. I know that not all Westminster comprises Mayfair and Belgravia; nevertheless, Mayfair and Belgravia form a substantial part of it. Nobody in their right mind believes that Westminster is more deprived than the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings). In terms of wealth and income of the people who live in Easington, it is one of the least well-off places in Britain. [Interruption.] If Conservative buffoons do not realise that, given the effects of all the pit closures, they are not even fit to sit on the Conservative Benches.
According to the Government's scale of deprivation, Easington, after all the pit closures, comes 338th in the priority of deprivation, whereas Westminster comes fourth. While Westminster comes fourth, Warrington is 337th, Stockport is 295th, the Forest of Dean is 257th and Erewash


in Derbyshire is 228th. According to the criteria laid down by the Government, Chorley in Lancashire, whose Member of Parliament has just been on his feet, is 194th—190 places behind Westminster in the scale of deprivation. The result of those infamous assessments is that Westminster coins it while other areas have to do without.
As I have done before, I shall give a list of the council taxes that other areas would have had to charge if they had received the same amount of help per head as Westminster. Let us take Tamworth. If Tamworth council had received the same amount of help per head as Westminster, it would not have needed to levy council tax at all. This year, it would have been able to give a rebate of £969 to every council tax payer. In Milton Keynes, the council would be able to pay out a rebate of £692. In Peterborough, represented by the chairman of the Tory party, the council would be able to pay out an £863 rebate. In Basildon, famed in Tory song and story, the council would be able to pay out a rebate of £615. In the borough of Trafford, the council would be able to pay out a rebate of £527. In Oldham, the council would be able to pay out a rebate of £145 and in Rochdale, the figure would be £303. In Cherwell, a good, solid Tory area, the council would be able to pay out a £925 rebate. The figure for Wyre Forest would be £855 and in the great city of Southampton, the figure would be £972. That is the amount that the council would be able to pay out, rather than having to take in any council tax, if it got the same level of help as Westminster does.
The same unfairness characterises education. With the massive amount that the Government allow Westminster for education per pupil, Staffordshire would be able to take on 4,895 extra teachers and it would not be contemplating job losses in schools this year. Bedfordshire would be able to take on an extra 2,000 teachers, Oldham an extra 1,000 teachers, Rochdale an extra 850 teachers, Essex an extra 5,300 teachers and Kent an extra 5,600 teachers if they got the same level of help per pupil as Tory Westminster gets. Those figures demonstrate the scale of the racket. All this is because the Government regard Westminster as the fourth most deprived place in Britain.
Four is a magic number for Westminster because the Audit Commission's most recent figures show that people living in Westminster pay only 4 per cent. towards the cost of the services provided by the council and that the Government divvy up the other 96 per cent. I suggest that Tory Members have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents.
The chairman of the Tory party represents Peterborough, although, as we all know, he is doing a bunk under the chicken run and going to somewhere safer. His constituents in Peterborough have to pay 25 per cent. of the cost of providing local services. People in Milton Keynes have to pay 35 per cent. and people in Basildon have to pay 42 per cent., 10 times the proportion that people living in Westminster have to pay towards council services. In Corby, the figure is 48 per cent.; almost half the cost of services has to be met by local people, whereas the figure for Westminster is just 4 per cent.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is talking about percentages. Does he agree£I do not think that the figure is disputed£that compulsory competitive tendering has saved 7 per cent. of the costs

of local government services? Does he know that his promise to get rid of compulsory competitive tendering is, in the words of The Guardian, a dangerous capitulation to the trade unions? Is that not what he is about? Is he not about destroying services and trying to mislead people rather than putting forward a policy?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is up a gum tree if he thinks that I will be embarrassed by quotations from The Guardian. I will give a quotation from the Audit Commission. If we are talking about the value of compulsory competitive tendering, let us see how it performs in Westminster. Profligate Westminster, which gets all this money from central Government, which put poor families in asbestos-ridden blocks and which organised the misspending of £29 million of public money for party political advantage, is so badly mismanaged, even with compulsory competitive tendering, that refuse collection and disposal costs £55 per head of population and street cleaning costs £36.42 per head of population. That is the highest figure in the country by miles. Many of Westminster's other services are equally grotesquely expensive.
Let us compare the figures with those for the borough of Camden—part of which I am proud to represent. It is literally next door to Westminster, so it faces roughly the same cost conditions. In Westminster, refuse collection and disposal costs £55 per head whereas Camden's service costs £22. Westminster's street cleaning costs £36 whereas Camden's costs £14.83. That shows the better bargain and better value that Labour Camden gets compared with Westminster. All over the country, Labour local government provides good services and good value for money. Nothing the Tories say will shift people's opinion that they are better off with a Labour council and that is why we control 200 local authorities while the Tories control just 13; they may lose four of them in the local elections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I have a brief announcement to make. Following today's business statement, I have been asked to notify the House that Members wishing to submit amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill may do so tonight in the Public Bill Office. An informal list of amendments submitted in this way will be made available in the Vote Office before 10 pm this evening. A more formal marshalled list of amendments will be made available in the course of the Second Reading debate tomorrow.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government on the rigorous approach it is taking towards all public expenditure, including that of local government; commends the clarity of their approach towards taxation and the funding of local services; and urges local authorities to make the most efficient use of the resources available.'.
The speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was entirely in keeping with April fools' day. He managed to choose the worst


possible ground on which to attack the Government and, as usual, he managed to make the worst possible case on that ground.
Before I respond to such points as one can remember from the speech, it is worth reflecting on why the Opposition chose this subject for debate. In one of his earliest pronouncements as leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) asked the public to judge the Labour party on its achievements in office locally and not on its rhetoric. He said:
I don't think the character of any party becomes clear until you're in power.
Those words have now come back to haunt him.
The council tax bills and the Audit Commission's performance indicators, both published two weeks ago, show categorically that people pay more and get less under Labour councils. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield is, therefore, desperate to avoid being judged on that record and he has sent the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to defend him. That is why we are having this debate today, that is why the hon. Gentleman has come forward to explain all about the council tax and that is why the Labour party is so embarrassed. It is embarrassed not only by the record of Labour local government, but by the chasm between what Labour says in soundbites in the television studios and what happens when it is in power locally.
The fact is that Labour remains the party of high taxes and high spending. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not quote two figures. First, that Labour councils charge 50 per cent. more in council tax. Secondly, although pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the hon. Gentleman never said how much the Labour party would have given to local authorities. He told us that the figure was not high enough, but he never told us what the figure should have been.
We can all say how much more we would like to spend on this, that and the other, but in the end, we have to say, if we are to be believed by anybody, how much we would have spent. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us. We tried, some time ago, to find out. We pushed him and we asked him, and he finally said that he would not tell us because, if he did, we might pick the figure to pieces. We would do that because Labour has said that it would not spend any more. It is frightened that we might note that the reason why taxes are higher—

Mr. Dobson: That is not what I said.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not say that. I shall give way to him if he promises to tell me how much extra money he would have spent if he had been in government today.

Ms Armstrong: The Conservatives never did that in 1978.

Mr. Gummer: How much extra money does the hon. Gentleman believe councils ought to have?

Mr. Dobson: I said that the council tax increases have been knowingly brought about by the Government.

They know that, and it is no use them trying to blame Labour councils or anybody else—the Government are responsible for the council tax increases.

Mr. Gummer: I have given the hon. Gentleman a chance after his long speech to give the figure, but he has still not done so. That makes incredible any claim that he makes that not enough money has been given. Unless he can say how much he would give, he is not credible and no sensible person will be able to take what he says seriously. Even if they have not heard his speech, they could not take him seriously.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My right hon. Friend, who was concentrating on the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), may not have noticed the hon. Gentleman's deputy, the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), screeching that we did not tell people in 1978 how much we would spend. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the hon. Lady is wrong? We made clear at the time that we would not be spending a single penny more, and that councils would have to use their money better. Labour is trying to bribe people into believing that they would get more money.

Mr. Gummer: If it were in power, Labour would either provide more money—in which case it would have to take the money from somewhere else or push up all taxation significantly—or it would not, in which case it is misleading its own members in councils around the country.

Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I will in a moment, but I want to get through this part of my speech. It is important that the House listens carefully to what I am suggesting.
The Leader of the Opposition says that education is Labour's number one priority. Yet all around the country, Labour councillors are busy diverting the extra money that they have been given or have been allowed to spend from education into other areas. Having been allowed to spend the money, Labour councillors are spending it on the things that they want, and not on education that the public want. The Leader of the Opposition says one thing, but Labour councillors do another.

Mr. Betts: rose—

Sir Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) first, but I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) later.

Mr. Betts: Will the Secretary of State move from his imaginary figures to the real ones in the Government's own Red Book? The Chief Secretary admitted to the Treasury Select Committee that council taxes would rise by about 8 per cent. as a result of the Government's own policies because the Government were cutting grants and


throwing the burden on council taxes. Will he now confirm that there are similar figures for each of the next two years? Does that not amount—in the Government's own forecast—to an increase of 25 per cent. in council taxes in the next three years? Will that not result in councils having to bear 26 per cent. of total local authority funding, rather than 21 per cent. as at present?

Mr. Gummer: I can confirm that the Labour party—in the presence of Sir Jeremy Beecham—suggested that council taxes would go up on average by 10 per cent. In fact, they have gone up on average by just over 6 per cent. The difference between the figures is very clear, and the increase does not tally with any of the figures given by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend accept confirmation from Northamptonshire of the points that he is making? After making many representations to the Government, the council obtained a 6 per cent. increase in the amount of moneys available to be paid to school governors for the year just started. But the Labour-controlled Northamptonshire county council—after screaming for months about teachers losing their jobs and increasing class sizes—has not passed all the money on and has kept back something like £2 million.

Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he is extremely lucky. In Labour and Liberal-controlled Suffolk, the local council could have spent £11.5 million but is spending £8.5 million. It has written one of the longest letters ever by a local authority to its head teachers and governors to explain why instead of spending the money on education—because it is spending the money, of course—it is spending it on things that it thinks are more important. The Leader of the Opposition—supported by the Liberal Democrats—talks about education as his great priority. Yet Labour councils around the country are not spending the money on education.
It costs someone living under a Labour council—whether it is this year, last year or the year before—50 per cent. more than someone living under a Conservative council. The Government do not set council tax bills—the local authorities do. Nobody forced Labour and Liberal Democrat councils to increase their council tax bills, and to increase them by more than Conservative councils. Nobody forced them to reduce services—they have chosen to do so. Why? Because they failed to use the methods by which they could get better value for money.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I will in a moment. I want to explain the methods so that the hon. Gentleman can take them back to Wakefield—a council that I am sure would like to know them.
For all the various budgets proposed by Labour councils—those are enormous in many cases—an alternative is proposed. Labour-controlled Birmingham—mentioned by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—increased its band D council tax by £76. But the Conservatives' shadow budget proposed a zero increase. There is no need for the council tax

to go up in Birmingham. The council tax could remain at the same level, and services could be improved by Birmingham being run more efficiently. The fault in Birmingham lies neither with the people nor with the Government, but with the Labour council. The tax increase of £76 is a Labour tax increase. One pays more and gets less under Labour.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras had the effrontery to talk about Labour's education policy in Birmingham. But the Labour party had a putsch on its leadership in Birmingham because it had not spent the money on education, and had spent it on the very things for which the hon. Gentleman was lauding the council.

Mr. Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it was or was not right for the city of Birmingham to build the international convention centre?

Mr. Gummer: I am referring to comments by Councillor Theresa Stewart who, in seeking a change of policy, suggested that the priorities of Birmingham city council had been wrong and that the money ought to have been spent elsewhere. I stand by that. My point is not whether this or that particular decision was right, but that the Labour party in Birmingham is deeply divided about what should have been done. The Conservatives have offered a way in which Birmingham could have no rise in council tax under the Government's grant system. Birmingham's tax is therefore a Labour tax.
Enfield is putting up its tax, while the Conservatives would be able to cut £20 of band D council tax. In Kent, the Conservatives have proposed a council tax rise of 2.9 per cent., but the Labour and Liberal Democrat council had to put it up by 5.6 per cent. In all those places, the Conservatives have said what they would spend. They have given the figures, and are prepared to stand by them. The Labour party is a disgrace because it will not give any figures. It is afraid to do so. Labour could either give figures that show that it is fiscally sensible—in doing so, it would deny the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras' whole case—or figures that would clearly demonstrate that Labour is the raising-tax and lowering-service party that we all know it to be.

Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to intervene in the Secretary of State's speech. If Wakefield had the same rate support grant distribution as Westminster, we could spend a further £600 per head on secondary school education. I am using the same performance indicator figures to which the Secretary of State referred. What does the Secretary of State say to those figures?

Mr. Gummer: Why does the hon. Gentleman not do himself better than that? Why does he not compare Westminster and Wakefield under a Labour Government? He would make even better figures for himself. The Labour Government were even more helpful to Westminster proportionately. Or why does he not look at Tower Hamlets? Why does he not say to himself, "If only we had the money that Tower Hamlets has."? Then he would discover that he could spend even more money per secondary school pupil. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the figures that come out of the system are entirely independent.


They are based upon need. He knows perfectly well that that is true because when Labour was in power it gave Westminster a higher proportion than we do.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend mentioned the increase of 5.6 per cent. in the precept of Kent county council, which is now Labour-Liberal. As the Government gave a more than 4 per cent. increase in central Government finance, people in Kent object to the fact that the increase for the schools is very much less than either figure—only 3.4 per cent. That bears out the fact that Kent people under the Liberals and Labour are having to pay more to get less.

Mr. Gummer: Before I respond, I should like to offer the House an idea. There is a kind of meter in the House. When the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who sits for part of Camden, laughs or giggles, we know that he is on a weak point. If the House watches, it will notice that whenever he laughs it is because we are right and he is wrong. It is what I call the giggle factor for the hon. Gentleman and it is one well worth watching out for. It is almost infallible—not quite, but almost.
Kent is a very badly run council. It was a very well run council and I am sorry that Kent, with its particular system at the moment, should have made education so much less a priority than my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) would want and that the Government have sought to give it the means to do.
Of course, one has to remember that the views that I am putting forward are not only my own. They are independently supported. I was interested to see the article by Dido Sandler in yesterday's Independent on Sunday. She concluded, rather interestingly, on the question of the difference between a Labour and a Conservative council, that:
one of the best ways of saving money on your council tax is to move. If you tot up what Band H taxpayers in the London borough of Lambeth have contributed over the past six years, compared with their peers in neighbouring Wandsworth, the difference is enough to buy a car.".
That is the difference. In Lambeth under Labour the council tax went on and on going up, even though the council received more money from the taxpayer than Wandsworth.
There is not even a scintilla of truth in the nonsense that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has been talking. If one compares Lambeth and Wandsworth, one discovers that Lambeth, with more money from the taxpayer, pushed its council tax up time after time while Labour was in control. Now that no one is in control, the council has been able to cut the council tax as it was never able to do when Labour ran it. So not only is Labour more expensive than Conservative, it is more expensive than having no one in control. It is more expensive to have a Labour council than to let it rip and let anyone run it—to let whatever collection of people turn up for a meeting run the council. It is a wonderful situation. Labour is worse than any coalition of anyone who happens to turn up on any day.
The Liberal Democrats are not as bad as Labour. People pay only 30 per cent. more on average with them. People pay 50 per cent. more with Labour. The gap between Conservative and Lib-Lab local government has been widening. It has got worse, not better. The only excuse that there could be is that the services are better for the higher price. That is the only argument and that is what Labour has said.
So I have looked carefully at the wealth of information produced by the Audit Commission comparing the performances of councils. Indicator after indicator shows that Labour councils provide a poorer service. People are less likely to get their housing benefit, council tax benefit or rent allowance paid on time if they live under a Labour council; less likely to have planning decisions made on time; and twice as likely to find a street light not working. They wait longer for vital equipment after a social services assessment. Labour councils have a higher proportion of their homes empty and available for letting, they take longer to re-let dwellings and they have a greater proportion of tenants in rent arrears.
So why do Labour councils cost so much more? First of all, they have to make up for the taxes that they fail to collect. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who interrupted the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, was right. In 1994–95, Labour councils failed to collect more than £250 million in council tax. That money could have been spent on teachers and new equipment in schools, on extra home helps or on other local services. It could even have been used to cut the council tax. But none of those things was done.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I should like to give the second reason and give an example, and then I will give way.
Secondly, Labour councils do everything that they can to stifle competition and keep local services under the control of their trade union paymasters. As a result, they end up paying more for inadequate services run by trade unions that bankroll the Labour party. I shall give two examples of that. The first is from Brent.
Under Labour, Brent was a byword for shoddy services and high taxes. Even the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) accused Labour-run Brent of being "monumentally incompetent". He had all the experience of the Greater London council so he knew what incompetence was. If he said something was incompetent, he meant it, and monumentally incompetent must mean something absolutely unbelievable.
Under the Conservatives, Brent has the fourth lowest council tax in London. It is the only authority in England to have cut its taxes in each of the past six years. MORI polls show that overall customer satisfaction in that borough has increased by 18 per cent. since Labour was removed from office. The council has won a record seven charter marks. These remarkable achievements are not matched by any Labour council in the land. That is what happens under the same grant system when a council changes from Labour to Conservative.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: In one moment. I promised the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) that I would give way to him and then I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I ought to be perfectly fair and have a look at a council neighbouring Brent. Islington, the Leader of the Opposition's own authority, exemplifies the record of


Labour local government. Islington spends the third highest per head of population in the country yet its results are appalling. It is the slowest council in London, and the second slowest nationally, in deciding planning applications; it is the third worst council for the average time taken to re-let properties; it has just set the sixth highest council tax in the land.
There is a problem here because Islington does not quite know how it did it. The Audit Commission confirms what we already knew from the recent district auditor's report—that Islington cannot even measure how bad it is. Time and again the Commission expresses "doubts" about
the council's arrangements for producing the required information".
Islington does not know the percentage of items of equipment provided within three weeks for those in desperate need. It cannot tell the percentage of over-75s helped to live at home. It is not sure of the percentage of adults going into residential care who are offered single rooms. It does not have the figures for the percentage of household waste recycled. No one is certain of the percentage of householder planning applications decided in eight weeks. It does not know, it cannot tell and it does not care. As long as the unions in Islington are happy, it does not care. That is the problem with Labour councils that charge people more and provide them less.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I am a little confused. If the right hon. Gentleman follows the logic of his argument that Labour authorities are bad and Tory authorities good, why are there only 13 Tory authorities and 200 Labour councils?

Mr. Gummer: That is something that will soon be remedied as people realise just what it is like to have a Labour council. I have no difficulties about that. We shall soon see.

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman claimed that it was simply to Brent council's credit that it had managed to reduce its council tax. Does he think that its ability to reduce that tax was enhanced by the letters that the leader of the council sent to the special Tory adviser at the Treasury, the local government desk officer at Tory central office and the special adviser at the Department of the Environment in July 1994, saying that he had had discussions with them and asking them to ensure that there would be
no swingeing increases in the level of Council Tax set by the borough next year which could then lose us control of the borough
and expressing the hope that the Treasury would agree to provide enough funding. Does he think that that might have had a little to do with what the council tax turned out to be in Brent?

Mr. Gummer: As the Treasury does not decide, the figures are done on exactly the same basis for each of the London boroughs and there was no change whatsoever in the way in which Brent was dealt with, the hon. Gentleman can answer his own question without any difficulty. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is keen on trying to spread any rumour he likes in any way in likes because he is trying to imply something that is manifestly not true and he ought to be a little more careful.
This year's settlement struck a fair balance between the needs of local government and of the economy as a whole. The total standard spending for England will be £44.93 billion—a huge amount and an increase of £1.42 billion or 3.3 per cent. That shows the importance that we attach to local government services. We have provided a 4.5 per cent. increase in provision for education and 6.9 per cent. for personal social services, including £418 million in transitional community care special grants.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras believes that this year's settlement is inadequate, but he never tells us by how much or what he would do. He never says what a Labour Government might do, could do, think of doing or might have to put off doing. The real and the only conclusion—after the hon. Gentleman's speech it is a simple conclusion—is that he neither understands the system nor knows what he would do if we were ever so stupid as to put him in power.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras believes that the settlement is wrong because local taxpayers are meeting slightly more of the cost of local services. I am surprised that he should say so because the Labour party's local government policy document, "Renewing Democracy, Rebuilding Communities" says that Labour
believe that it would be better for local people and make for a healthier democracy if councils were responsible for raising locally a much higher proportion of the money they invest and spend".
I emphasise the words "much higher proportion". It is not some small amount. That is what Labour wants.
I have heard Opposition Members mention the business rate. Oh yes, they would like to have that again because it does not make them responsible at all. The policy document cannot mean that, however, because it states that
it would be better for local … democracy",
but the business rate means that one can charge anyone anything one likes without it having an effect on local democracy.
Indeed, when local authorities administered the business rate, what happened? It meant that the John Lewis Partnership paid three times as much per square foot in Newcastle as it did in Westminster. That was under a Labour Government. Why did the centre of Newcastle almost close down? It was because Newcastle city council taxed people out of existence. When the friends of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) were in power in Sheffield, why could one not find a business that would not have moved out of the city if only it could have found someone to buy its premises?
That is what happened under the business rate, so it was not surprising that when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors brought together business men of all kinds, including the Confederation of British Industry and all the other organisations, the one thing that they were all agreed about was that the business rate should continue to be centrally organised and protected so that it could not rise above the rise in the cost of living. Why? Because the Labour party can never be trusted not to put its hands into other people's pockets and the business people of Britain know that. They also know that the north of England has benefited enormously.
The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) had better listen. The £800 million that was levied by Labour councils in the north was no


longer levied once the universal business rate was put into operation. She fought for the retention of Cleveland. We know about her—

Ms Armstrong: I did not.

Mr. Gummer: I am sorry. The hon. Lady did not want Cleveland. She was in the other bit of the Labour party—the bit that did not want Cleveland.

Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman really means my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). It is about time that he learnt to distinguish between Opposition Members. Just because we are women, it does not mean that we are all the same.

Mr. Gummer: I am sorry. The hon. Lady jumps to the defence of her hon. Friend, who was on the other side over Cleveland. I know which side the people of Cleveland were on—they were universally against Cleveland. I am pleased to say that one of the most popular measures I have ever taken was to confirm the demise and removal of Cleveland.
I was amazed to discover that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras dared to stand up and tell me that Labour-controlled Middlesbrough had reduced its council tax. Hon. Members may wonder why. It was because there is no Cleveland any more. Without the incubus of Cleveland, the council has been able to be more sensible. Not sensible enough, however. People would be much better off if the council were Conservative-controlled because they would be paying 50 per cent. less.

Mr. Dobson: Most unusually, I am almost at a loss for words. The Secretary of State says that the abolition of Cleveland has led to a reduction in the council tax in Middlesbrough, which is Labour-controlled. How does he account, therefore, for the increase in council tax in Redcar and Stockton, which are also Labour-controlled and also in Cleveland?

Mr. Gummer: If I lived in any of those places, that is the first question that I would ask. Why is that Labour council even more incompetent than that in Middlesbrough? I would be banging at the council's door for an answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be in the lead, asking the council, "How is it that even the loonies next door can do better than you?" That is what I would be asking.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on about the money that Westminster gets for daily visitors. I was interested to hear that because Westminster gets 5 per cent., but Labour-controlled Norwich gets 7 per cent., Labour-controlled Cambridge gets 8 per cent., as does Labour-controlled Great Yarmouth, and the independently controlled—just to be absolutely independent—West Somerset gets 10 per cent. I wonder why the hon. Gentleman did not mention any of those and why they did not come high up his list. I wonder whether he has visited Cambridge recently to say anything about the parking charges. It is noticeably one of the worst councils in Britain and it has the smelliest car parks in Britain. It also has one of the most dangerous car parks in Britain. The fact of the matter is, however, that it raises a lot of money in car parking charges and yet it gets a percentage that is

significantly higher than that received by Westminster. Why did the hon. Gentleman not mention Cambridge? Did he not know about it, or is it because those other councils are Labour-controlled and Westminster happens to be a Conservative-controlled council?
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras knows that the system under which we work is fair and honourable. We worked it out with all the local authority organisations. What the hon. Gentleman said about Westminster is totally countered, first, by the fact that it did proportionately better under Labour than it has under the Conservatives and, secondly, by the fact that no one in local government believes him. None of the experts believes him. But, he never listens to experts. That gives me a grave problem because I listened to his speech extremely carefully and I cannot imagine to whom he listened when he wrote it. No Front Bench spokesman could have written such a speech. It was wrong from beginning to end. He has not checked any of his facts and has not been to the councils. Even the charming comments by the hon. Member for North-West Durham will not cover the fact that the speech was unworthy of the Opposition's local government spokesman. Local government deserves better than it gets from him.
I want to remind the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of one that he did not run—perhaps he did not remember it—this time: the old line that it was not true that Labour councils cost more than Conservative councils because that was true only if like was compared with like. If one compared like with unlike, it could be proved that Labour charged less. To that Mr. Peter Kellner rightly said:
I dissected Labour's assertion that its councils charged householders £40 less tax. I showed that this figure had nothing to do with the financial prudence of Labour councils, and everything to do with the tendency of Labour voters to live in the less affluent parts of Britain: as a result, homes in Labour areas tended to fall into lower Council Tax bands and this was why average Council Tax was lower. I went on to show that the proper way to judge the figures was to compare like with like—say Band D figures, council by council … [Labour's] claim is as misleading as it ever was … On this issue, Labour is wrong and Tories are right.
The fact is that not only on this but on every issue that he raised, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has been wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) will deal at the end of the debate with the matters that have not been covered so far and with matters relating to Wales. Many of us wonder how we can discuss council tax without the Labour party raising anything to do with Wales. Could it be that it is afraid to field the shadow spokesman for Wales who, of course, is not being allowed out at the moment? He is not being allowed to say anything on anything lest he should do what he normally does and say the wrong things on everything.

Mr. Betts: To get back to proper comparisons, will the Secretary of State confirm that when the Government began to compare council tax in different authorities, they used the average value as the fair one? Only when they found that that favoured Labour authorities, which were costing people less, did they change the figures. Will he further confirm that the use of band D is misleading because if two authorities collect the same amount of money from the same number of properties but one has


lower value properties, that council will have a higher band D council tax than a similar authority with more higher value properties? That is a mathematical point. The Secretary of State should learn some maths before he quotes figures.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman and I are biased on this so I will quote Peter Kellner, a well-known Labour supporter. He said:
Gummer is right and Straw is wrong.
He is right. Gummer is right on this and Straw and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who follows him with rather less certainty, are wrong.
I thank the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for tabling this motion. Without his kind intervention, we would not have had the opportunity of hearing what amounts to the Labour party's lack of a policy on council tax and council spending. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has shown what we always suspected but now know to be true. He neither understands the system nor knows what he would do if he were ever in a position to do something. He has proved that Labour councils cost more and give less; that Labour puts taxes up and puts services down; that Labour's interest is that of the trade unions who work for councils not of the people who pay for local services; that Labour does not know what it would do but that its only answer on any issue is to yah-boo and to laugh. He would not be sitting in his place if he took local government seriously.

Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a typically sharp, robust and revealing speech. He put the inhuman algebra of revenue support grant and its formulae into the context of the poorest communities, and he was surely right to do so. His opposite number, however, delivered a tirade: the Secretary of State for the Environment made a typically combative and hectoring speech but forgot to say that his party has held the reins of power for 17 years. He forgot to say that his Government proposed and supported the iniquitous poll tax and other unpleasant legislation that was imposed during the 1980s. He then had the effrontery to accuse my party of effrontery. He raises posturing, wriggling, dodging and whingeing to the status of high parliamentary art and one has to admire his cheerful cynicism and aggressive bombast.
The record of Conservative Administrations on local government is abysmal. Intolerant, repressive and aggressive legislation has robbed Britain's councils of their free status and councils are in danger of becoming the poodles of central Government. The Government, and their predecessors under Mrs. Thatcher, have undermined and all but taken away the independence of our local government, and in so doing they have gone against the grain of Britain's local government history. Legislative attacks on local government hurt our body politic. Her Majesty's Government now dictate and control all but 11 per cent. of council spending. That cannot be right.
Local government is part of Britain's basic democratic foundations. It is currently fashionable to say that the Executive—that is, the Cabinet—is overmighty, that it dominates and dwarfs the House of Commons. That is

often argued in the newspapers and sometimes in the Chamber. Certainly, since 1979 measures have been taken to downgrade local government in Britain and in Wales. Our councillors, who work very hard, feel that they are elected to carry the blame for policies imposed upon them and their local authorities by the Government.
The poll tax was the high point of the attack on local government by Conservative Administrations, but central Government are still throwing their weight about and we are caught short by inadequate central Government funding for our local councils. That is what the debate is about and we are all witness to the real difficulties that our councils face. All paths in this debate lead to the Cabinet room.
Central Government are clearly determined to cut Treasury taxes with the general election in mind. Council tax bills have gone up by around 6.2 per cent. for band D in England, but in Wales they have gone up by an astronomical 18 per cent. People in Wales are aghast and astounded at the severity of the increases, which represent a serious hike in the private domestic budgets of Welsh taxpayers. I must report to the House the resentment and apprehension felt in Wales at those increases. Our councillors are left with the difficult task of explaining the iniquities and machinations of central Government. It is their lot to explain why those increases have been forced on every taxpayer.
Wales is at the top of the league for low wages. That is a great problem. Local government finance policies therefore have serious implications and are a key factor in domestic budgets.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to low wages, which prompted me to remember that he claimed that councillors are being downgraded. He pursued the theme that the Government are taking power away from local government, which leaves councillors less to do. If they have so little to do, does he approve of them paying themselves salaries of up to £24,000? Does he approve of the latest wheeze of setting up working parties to consider redundancy packages for defeated councillors?

Mr. Jones: I judge that intervention as an attack by a Welsh Office Minister on the work of councillors throughout Wales, of whichever party. My remarks will provide evidence of what I think of his argument.
Many of us suspect that the council tax allocation in Wales has been subject to foul play. We know that this is an election year and that there are precious few Conservative councils in Wales or, indeed, in Britain—so unpopular are the Government. The Conservative Government are therefore evading some of the responsibility for the increases in the council tax because they are not represented on the ground and do not have to answer for them. Although those increases have been imposed by the Conservatives, the Opposition parties are all too frequently expected to take the blame for them. In a general election year, I predict that the Conservative party chairman and others will blame luckless councils for those increases, which would be a travesty of the truth because the increases are the consequence of Government policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to the difficulties of the fire service. The North Wales fire service, which began its life today, is in great difficulties because it is desperately short of money. Everyone would agree, however, that it offers a life-or-death service. The leaders of the North Wales fire service have sought an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary. Should the Under-Secretary of State for Wales catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will be able to tell us that that deputation will be received by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I, too, represent north Wales. On Wednesday and Thursday last week I rang the Home Office to ask when that meeting would take place. The authority has not even received any written response from the Home Office. I was promised today that I would be told when the meeting would take place, but I have yet to receive a telephone call. That is disgraceful.

Mr. Jones: I made the same approach to the Home Office last week. As that brand-new, first-day fire service in North Wales faces major difficulties not of its own making, but of the Government's making, will the Home Secretary receive a deputation from the leadership of that authority? I emphasise that the personnel of the North Wales fire service, whom I know, are brave, dedicated and well qualified officers. I also declare an interest because Clwyd fire service made me an honorary fire chief. I can say with great sincerity that the Government have given that new, first-day fire authority a wretched allocation, and something must be done urgently if public confidence is to be maintained.
This year's council tax allocation in north Wales has also caused severe difficulties for the nationally famous Theatr Clwyd. The new Flintshire county council, in office just from today, has not been given enough money to keep open one of Britain's finest theatres—a theatre of excellence, with a national reputation and national support. When Clwyd county council died at midnight, the new unitary authority of Flintshire county council faced a colossal problem, because it has been forced to increase its council tax by 27 per cent. The neighbouring Welsh unitary authorities face the same predicament in terms of their council tax and the implications for Theatr Clwyd. Nevertheless, they have stumped up cash for the theatre as best they can. Yet the neighbouring English local authorities—Flintshire shares a border with Cheshire and other English authorities—have not contributed to its funding, although 50 per cent. of the theatre's audience are taxpayers from England.
The people of Flintshire and throughout Wales believe that the Secretary of State for Wales should introduce urgent measures to avert the risk of that theatre closing, and that he should release the £1.3 million that he has been considering using to write off its debt. If he fails to do so, the future of that excellent theatre is extremely bleak. Flintshire county council and the other unitary authorities in north-east Wales have made clear their commitment to the theatre, but it is now up to the Secretary of State to rescue that fine establishment.
We believe that our Secretary of State has given way unnecessarily to the Treasury on the council tax and local government finance. As a consequence, council taxes for Wales are significantly higher this year. Until now,

successive Governments of all parties and the Treasury have always acknowledged the difficulties that Wales has faced as a result of the incredibly harsh consequences of the industrial revolution. That is not the case any more. To many of us in Wales, particularly Labour Members, it seems as though the Welsh Office has volunteered to receive less local government funding, even though most people would agree that Wales still suffers from social and economic problems.
Since 1979, there have been massive, titanic redundancies in Wales as a result of the decline in the steel and coal industries, followed by the textile, cement, brick and slate industries. The valleys in the south-east of my country are still haunted by the consequences of the coal mine closures. The region's social and economic problems are arguably the worst in Britain. The quarry communities of north-west Wales still suffer from a dearth of manufacturing jobs since the closure of the many quarries which produced the world-famous slate. In the steel towns of north-east Wales, we still feel the lash of the huge steel industry redundancies. In 1980, Alyn and Deeside suffered western Europe's biggest ever redundancy: between Christmas and Easter there were at least 8,000 direct steel redundancies and thousands of other redundancies.
When manufacturing redundancies occur in the steel, coal, slate, cement and textile industries, local authorities need to generate policies to regenerate their economies. The local authorities that I have been able to represent in the House over the years have always had first-rate policies and first-rate records and have delivered some real jobs. Our communities have been grateful. That will be difficult from now on, however, with revenue support grant falling so hopelessly short. The settlement for 1996–97 was seriously defective and the immediate outlook for regeneration—making real jobs and giving hope to communities stricken by redundancies in manufacturing—is poor.
My constituency labours under a total of 2,400 jobless citizens. In the area of the new Flintshire council, more than 4,000 people are out of work. In what until yesterday was the old county of Clwyd, more than 13,000 people were seeking work. School leavers do not get a fair deal where real jobs are concerned. The long-term unemployed lose heart. The young unemployed, in their tens of thousands throughout our nation, also lose heart. Why, then, are we surprised when we encounter increasing crime or witness drug and solvent abuse? Why are we surprised at vandalism and graffiti and attacks on elderly persons in their homes? Why are we surprised by those things when there is an absence of work for so many of our fellow citizens, especially those who are young?
A reasonable council tax settlement in Wales would have enabled the new unitary local authorities to make meaningful inroads on those problems. I want our local authorities to be able to tackle those problems, not to be restricted by a serious shortage of central Government cash and grants. Britain's councils have been let down by the Government, and ordinary people are having to take the strain. The budget of every household is under attack as a result of these deficient settlements, but the general election will surely put matters right.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Local government is always important. I believe that a healthy local government administration throughout the country is part of the spread of liberties and power.
I remember when we had much smaller local authorities than we have now. My first local authority, in Lancashire, covered only 13,000 people and was very well run. In the reorganisations of 20 or 30 years ago, it was brought into a large mass of other villages and towns and it has never been the same as it was. I am not saying that small is beautiful in every way, but it is especially important, where possible, to have small authorities that know exactly what is happening in their area and do not rely on knowledge gained at second hand.
This is an Opposition debate and there does not seem much enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches for it. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), for whom I have great respect, has recently spoken, but he is an individual with a life-belt and no one else is around. There is no sign of anyone else concerned about the subject. It seems as though the Labour party has deserted local government—a fact that we should bring to the country's notice.
I lived through and talked through the issue of the community charge—the poll tax as it came to be called, and which it is being called by history. In theory, we were perfectly all right until one compared the rateable values of the small houses in the north with the big house at the end of the street. I prefer the new council tax system to the old rating system and I especially believe that it is good that we have a 25 per cent. discount for the single householder, which has helped many people, especially pensioners, to keep their independence.
My borough of Brent is always in the news, as some authorities always are. On the council tax, Brent's is a story almost unequalled in the country—one that I am delighted to tell, especially on behalf of the Conservative councillors instead of the Labour people, who are horrified by the great advances that are being made in Brent because they know that there is no way that they will be able to regain control.

Ms Armstrong: Corruption.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Lady says "Rubbish". She may be an expert on rubbish. I do not usually collect it.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there seems to be an increasing tendency for Front Bench Members to conduct what one might call a running commentary. Those on the Front Bench or anywhere else should either seek to rise in the normal way and make an intervention or keep quiet.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome the defence of the Deputy Speaker. As a quiet man, I welcome the defence so that I can take my speech consecutively, paragraph by paragraph.
Brent is the only local authority in England that has reduced its council tax in every one of the past six years. In the first year, the council tax was reduced because a

Conservative Government saved us when there was a Labour-Liberal administration in Brent, but in the other five it was done by the council cutting back.
Similarly, when the Conservatives came to power in Brent, four or five years ago, the council tax was the fourth highest in England and the fourth or the second highest in London, depending on whether one subtracted the discount. Now it is the second lowest in London if one subtracts the discount of 8 per cent. for paying in the first few weeks, which most people do.
Brent has moved from the top to the bottom of the expenditure league. It is a remarkable achievement, especially bearing in mind the fact that Conservative councillors in Brent inherited a debt of as much as £61 million from the sale and leaseback policy of the previous Labour administrations.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on Brent's achievements. As Member of Parliament for Brentford and Isleworth, which is in the borough of Hounslow, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is horrifying that council tax in Hounslow has increased by 7.4 per cent.—double the rate of inflation?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I sympathise with my honourable colleague on this matter, because it is the people who have to pay—not we in the House, apart from our own payment—for the mistakes of a Labour or a Liberal administration that spends so much money. We can compare those administrations. As I have said, this year there has been another reduction in Brent. Band D has been reduced by just over 2 per cent., by £10, and to a pensioner that is a lot of money. I shall compare that with the record in some other authorities. The rate in Labour-controlled Camden is up by 13.2 per cent. this year, and in Liberal Democrat-Labour Barnet it is up by 6 per cent. Labour-controlled Greenwich is up by 17 per cent. Brent has had a reduction of 2.2 per cent.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend know whether his fellow hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) share his admiration of the sterling work of the local council?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Members for the other Brent constituencies, but as my hon. Friend has drawn them to my attention perhaps I may be permitted to say that they are absent because they could not attack Brent council. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, but it would be difficult for any hon. Member representing a Brent seat to attack a council which has reduced its expenditure to such an extent while maintaining its services. I shall come to those in a moment. I have no wish to upset anyone else in the House although there is a temptation to do that. I shall try not to tempt the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) into interrupting again.

Ms Armstrong: rose—

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Please intervene.

Ms Armstrong: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is taking part in the debate and I shall reply to


him in my speech. I shall give not only my view but that of many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends from Brent. As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are allegations of corruption in relation to how matters are proceeding in Brent.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am speaking about the administration in Brent and about how much it has improved services and cut costs. Obviously, the hon. Lady has nothing to say about that. My people have good services at reduced cost and the more that better services and reduced taxation are drawn to the attention of the public the better.
I am informed that Brent is the only council in this country to have gained seven charter marks in recent years. If any hon. Member knows of a council that has received eight charter marks he should say so. Among the awards were charter marks for libraries and arts and for the registration of births, marriages and deaths. With low taxes it is obvious that births will go up. Most of the parents are registering as Conservatives. Is it any wonder with such low taxation?
Another charter mark was for one-stop shops. There are such shops all over the borough and the staff in them have to solve problems in a short time. Whatever the problem, the caller has to receive an answer, and that is good: I like to see people having to provide answers, and I am told that they are good answers. They must have been, or the shops would not have got a charter mark.
There was a charter mark for student grants and awards. When Labour was in power in Brent, I had sackfuls of post every morning from people at university who had not got their grants. Perhaps the council had to pay for extra staff, but whatever it was that Labour-controlled council could not get the grants out. Sometimes it was the grant for one term and sometimes it was for two, but some of the students had graduated and grown beards before they got the grants. Last year, I did not receive one letter about delays in grants.

Ms Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Yes, this is very nice.

Ms Armstrong: How many complaints to the ombudsman were found to be right? Will he confirm that it was, I think, 57—I shall check that—and that no other council in the country comes anywhere near that?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall have to have a look. Although the House is interested in what I am saying, I do not want to delay matters by going into these 57 issues. Some of them must be very small and some people must have triumphed. I was out in Brent yesterday and knocked the doors of 85 families. I had cards in my pocket which I handed out so I know how many people I met. None of those people mentioned what the hon. Lady has raised. They all said, "It is marvellous to live in a borough with good services and low taxation." Most of the people wanted me to come in, so if any Opposition Member would like to

join me on a Sunday we can call on the burghers of Brent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beefburgers."] I am still eating beef at every opportunity.

Mr. Pickles: On the issue of the ombudsman, is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour authorities are three times more likely than Conservative authorities to be found guilty of maladministration?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome that intervention. I did not know that. It is nice to learn as one speaks.
I shall continue with the list of charter marks. They were awarded to revenue and benefits and area planning and trading. When I was out yesterday afternoon I had 12 or 13 people with me. So many wanted to come that I had to limit the number. One could almost charge for knocking on doors, and that would help further to reduce charges in Brent. All the people I met said that they were happy with the services and they were also pleased that there had been another reduction this year. There is good news in Brent and I welcome this opportunity to speak about it.
Three Brent councillors have been adopted as Conservative candidates in other areas so that they can see what is going on. That might frighten Labour Members because it is dangerous for them. The deputy chairman of my constituency party has also been adopted. The signs are good all over Brent.
I must not get carried away or you will call me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to represent a borough that is doing so well under a Conservative administration. As I have said, it has gained seven charter marks—more than any other authority—and the reductions that it has made are almost unequalled. It gives me great pleasure to represent Brent, North and it will give me equal pleasure to represent it in the next Parliament.

Mr. David Rendel: The annual debate at about this time of the year about council tax is a familiar story that becomes more familiar every year. In the run-up to the local elections, the Conservative party and the Labour party seek to use council tax changes for short-term electioneering. That is a pity: there are better ways to deal with the council tax.
Each year, the Government promise to boost investment in Britain's essential infrastructure while at the same time promising to cut local taxation. This year, the Government have succeeded in breaking both those promises. Their policy towards local government is to force local taxes up, which has led to cuts in vital services. The increases that have been made in investment have been paid for by local authorities—on the one hand, by making well-nigh miraculous savings yet again and, on the other hand, by increasing council tax.
The rise in the council tax is, of course, an outcome that the Government fully intended to happen—they meant it to happen and they said that it would happen. The Secretary of State acknowledged that this year council tax would increase above the rate of inflation, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury expected council tax to increase by as much 8 per cent. In fact, as we have heard already, on average, council taxes have risen by just over 6 per cent in England.
Do we hear Conservative Members congratulating local authorities on holding the increase in council tax below the Government estimate? No, we do not. Why? Because Conservative Members seem interested only in damning all local authorities—and they do so purely because the Conservative party has lost control of almost all the councils that once formed the bedrock of Tory support.

Mr. Tracey: Presumably the hon. Gentleman will admit that, where councils are controlled by the Liberal Democrats, Conservative councillors in opposition have produced alternative budgets showing lower figures—which surely proves that they have more efficient ideas than the Liberal Democrats who are in control.

Mr. Rendel: I do not know, because I did not attend all the budget meetings. However, I know that, in my authority at Newbury, that is not the case—the Conservatives failed to produce any alternatives to the budget produced by the Liberal Democrats.
I was saying that a number of councils that once formed the bedrock of Tory support are now no longer governed by the Conservatives. Those councils, very often, now form the bedrock of Liberal Democrat support. Local people like what they have seen of the Liberal Democrats and they continue to pass control of their local councils to Liberal Democrat councillors. Only last month, the Liberal Democrats gained control of yet another district council—Craven district council—while, in another by-election, Labour notably failed to gain control of Cheshire county council. In the light of that, the constant carping of Conservative Members looks petty, vindictive and self-indulgent. It is time that Conservative Members accepted their loss of power and started to campaign for their local communities.
As has already been mentioned, particularly in relation to Wales, there is a particular problem this year for Wales and Scotland, because council tax increases have not been 6 per cent. on average but, in most cases, more than 15 per cent. That has come about because of a complete failure by the Government to make proper allowance for the setting-up costs of the new unitary authorities that came into being today. A poll over the weekend showed that most people blame the Government for those increases—and they are right.
It is important to note that it is not always the cheapest services that give the best value for money. The Audit Commission has found that Liberal Democrat authorities offer high-quality services in a very efficient manner—however, they may not always have the lowest council tax rates. Much more often than not, local people believe that they provide the best value for money. In particular, Liberal Democrat authorities have very high rates of collection of council tax—no doubt, in part due to the efforts to which our councils have gone to consult the public about how their money should be spent. The top four recycling authorities are Liberal Democrat councils—a success of which the Liberal Democrats are justifiably proud.
This year's financial settlement for local government has been not only a broken promise but an outright con trick. It is now well established that when the

Chancellor pledged more money for investment in education, he simply was not telling the truth. Local government has had no more money, in real terms, this year than it did last year. However, bizarrely, some Ministers continue to peddle the lie that local education authorities have more money, and they have already begun to attack local councils for not delivering it to schools, as we saw earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Pickles: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view, will he now advise Essex county council—which is run on a Lib-Lab pact—to release its war chest of reserves of more than £100 million and give it to schools? Will he instruct the council to do that, as it is holding money back from schools?

Mr. Rendel: That is an interesting indication of the difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats: the hon. Gentleman appears to think that I have the power to instruct local councils what to do with their money. I certainly do not have that power—perhaps he does.

Mr. Pickles: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, but he should have some views. Does he think that it is sensible for a county the size of Essex to hold more than £100 million in a slush fund and to withhold it from schools? Or does he think that it would be sensible to see that the schools get that money, so that there are no redundancies and they can get school books? Is that a good idea or not? I am sure that no one is paying any attention to the hon. Gentleman, so he should feel quite free to express his view.

Mr. Rendel: At this moment, I do not pretend that I know everything about all the funds held in all local authorities. Therefore, I cannot possibly answer a question about an individual local authority in the terms put by the hon. Gentleman without looking into the greater detail.

Mr. Ken Purchase: The £100 million that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) speaks of is almost certainly totally committed against liabilities, either on capital or on revenue, over the next 12 to 18 months. Furthermore, in any county there is a considerable budget and it is likely that the real level of reserves available—the term "slush fund" is an insult to local government—is below 2 or 3 per cent. How would the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar answer that?

Mr. Rendel: I shall not get involved in an argument between the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), but I shall get on with my speech.
Local government is at the mercy of the short-term electioneering of Conservative central Government. The sad fact is that the Tories have shown no mercy when it comes to local services, local people and local democracy. The Prime Minister's amendment to today's motion states:
congratulates the Government on the rigorous approach it is taking towards all public expenditure".
Most Ministers constantly boast about how much extra their Departments have spent in real terms. For example, one needs only to look at the constant boast coming from


the Department of Health about how much more is being spent on the national health service. How can the Government claim, as they do in their amendment, that there is a rigorous approach towards all public expenditure, including local government expenditure?
Sadly, the one Minister who cannot make a boast of increased spending in his Department is the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. The Government have been punishing local communities for not voting Conservative. The political capital that Conservative Members seek to make from the problems experienced by local authorities, at the expense of local government, is evidence enough.
The Prime Minister's amendment continues:
commends the clarity of their approach towards taxation and the funding of local services".
What are the Government talking about? They seem to be losing all grip on reality. The system of funding local government services could not possibly be more complicated. Only 24 hours before the final debate on the settlement, the Department of the Environment still had not got its figures right. It could not even tell me the correct total for England's revenue support grant—it could have been £31 billion or perhaps £32 billion; it simply did not know. The formulae are so complex that even the Government's computers got it wrong—and that is the basis for the Prime Minister commending the clarity of the Government's approach.
The Prime Minister proceeds to urge local authorities to make the most efficient use of the resources available. I have no doubt that most councils are already doing that, although their priorities may be rather different from those of the Conservative party. For example, most local authorities—unlike the City of Westminster—would not consider spending £20 million to £30 million on outrageous schemes to gerrymander local elections. But as the Conservatives in central Government squander tax revenue on election bribes, perhaps we should not be surprised to see Conservatives in local government indulging in similar practices.
The answer to the problems of local government and to the chaos of the funding system is not just a change of personnel at Downing street—it has to be said that the Labour party is no better friend to local democracy than the Conservatives. Its latest policy proposals suggest that it will seek to increase the imposition on local government of the priorities and political philosophy of the Government of the day, as long, of course, as it is a Labour Government.
Criticising the funding settlement is all very well, but what is Labour's alternative? Would it provide a penny of extra money for education and local services? Would it cap local authorities more tightly even than present capping, to keep council tax down, and force yet greater cuts in services? The Labour party has not answered any of those questions. It has become an empty vessel, with no commitments and precious few policies. What we do know is that the Labour party failed to vote against the Budget's tax cuts, so it must accept its share of the blame for this year's financial settlement.
Local councils will not forget that the Labour party shamefully failed to vote against the 1p cut in income tax last November. It may claim that it will provide local government with the resources that local government needs, but its actions belie its words. So long as it

continues to play the Tory game of promising to honour tax cuts, but also to build better services, it will have no credibility.
We Liberal Democrats made it clear that there were investment priorities that were more important than delivering a cut in income tax. That is still our belief, and we stand by our commitment to make the badly needed investment in education. If it is necessary to put a penny on income tax to meet that pledge, so be it.

Mr. Pickles: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way, but is not it true that his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) conceded that the Liberals' published proposals on education would cost not 1p on income tax but 2.5p?

Mr. Rendel: We have constantly said that the proposals that we shall make in the first year of any new Government, or at any time when we have power, will add 1p to income tax, and we have stuck to that.
There are major faults in the whole system of local government finance that must also be addressed, regardless of which party rules in Whitehall. The council tax itself has many problems. After all, it was introduced only as an expedient to quell the uproar against the poll tax. If it is to be retained, at least for a year or two longer, surely we can agree on some of the worst aspects that should be amended.
One problem on which we could all surely agree is that there are too few property bands. Band A is simply too high. Tens of thousands of people living in low-value accommodation are paying more than their fair share. Owners of mobile or park homes are the best example of the need for a lower starting band. Many mobile home owners survive on very low incomes and will be particularly hard hit by increases in council tax.
There is also a problem with the higher council tax bands. Band G, running from £160,000 to £320,000, is as wide as all the bands from A to F put together. The difference in implied disposable income between people living in houses valued at £160,000 and those living in houses worth £320,000 is immense. The width of band G makes it too much of a catch-all for so much of suburban and rural Britain. The result is that a large number of people on a wide variety of incomes are paying exactly the same council tax.
Furthermore, band H provides a rather arbitrary cut-off point, covering all properties valued above £320,000. It draws no distinction between a large, listed family house and a massive country mansion with dozens of rooms, valued in the millions.
The problems that I have described relate to the central principle of taxation. People should generally pay according to their means. Council tax bands, just like the old rates, imply that everybody living in a large house has a large income, and that everybody living in a flat has a small income. The reality, of course, is rather different. People have different priorities in deciding how much of their money they will plough into buying or renting their home. More important, their personal income changes quite a lot throughout their life cycle. Pensioners are the most obvious group of people who may have acquired comparatively expensive homes, but who no longer have large disposable incomes. The same applies to a great many people who have suffered redundancy or


unemployment, or, indeed, re-employment, and to those who have simply chosen to change their career or to reduce their working hours: mothers or fathers staying at home to look after children are an obvious example.
The council tax is a bad tax. It is inherently unfair and is unsuitable for bearing an increased burden of taxation. As the Government continue to shift tax from central Government to local authorities, the problems and disparities will only grow. It is right that a larger proportion of local authorities' revenue should be raised locally, but it must also be raised fairly. If local authorities are to have real independence from Whitehall, and real freedom to adapt to the differing needs of local people, they must have greater control over their own revenue. That means that, over time, more money should be raised locally, with corresponding reductions in national taxation.
With that in mind, the Liberal Democrat answer is the replacement of the council tax with local income tax. A local income tax has many virtues: it is relatively easy to collect, it is fair, and it can take a much larger burden than other forms of local taxation. Records of current income tax payments already exist with the Inland Revenue, and computerisation has made local authority income tax all the more feasible.
The obvious fairness of the tax is one of its main selling points. Its fairness helps to make it easier to collect, as people are more willing to pay. It is its fairness that makes it so suitable for taking the burden of tax transferred from national taxation. It is fair because it meets the principle that taxpayers pay what they can afford to pay. Yes, some people on high incomes will pay more, but very many people on middle or lower incomes, including many pensioners, will pay less.
Labour and Conservative Members may shy away from local income tax simply because it has been so vigorously promoted by the Liberal Democrats, but it is worth remembering that local income tax was backed by the Layfield report in 1976. Indeed, the report concluded that the tax is the only suitable means for raising additional significant revenue from local communities. That view has been wholly endorsed by Sir Charles Carter in his recent report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The local income tax is not some wild scheme that was never intended to be put into practice. It is the only realistic route forward for local government, if, that is, we really want the rebirth of local democracy. That is what the Liberal Democrats are aiming for. I doubt, however, whether Labour and Conservative Members share the same goal.
At least the Conservative Government have made their intentions clear. National contributions to local services will be cut in 1997–98 and in 1998–99, just as they have been over the past two years. The Government plan to shift the burden ever more heavily on to councils, so either services will be cut or local tax will rise. Frankly, it will probably be both. Under the current plans, the argument over the council tax is set to intensify over the next three years. As it does, it will become obvious that only the Liberal Democrats seek to reform local government in a way that suits local people rather than in a way that suits central Government.
The council tax is unjust. It is useful only as a political football between self-indulgent politicians. It must be scrapped, and the sooner that we set about replacing it with a local income tax, the better.

Sir Peter Fry: I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will excuse me if I do not follow his arguments. My problem is that his fellow Liberal Democrats in my constituency are so persuasive that we do not have a single Liberal councillor either at county or at local level.
The hon. Gentleman omitted to say where he stood on the capping level of a local income tax. I believe that if one was to hand back to local authorities a big say in the way in which they got their money in, perhaps it would be better not to have any kind of cap, so that we could see which councils were spending well and which were being extravagant.
The debate should not really have been described as a debate on the council tax; it should have been described as a debate on hypocrisy. I hope to demonstrate the way in which Opposition Members say one thing and do another. It is clear that the Labour party cannot be pinned down at local level, and that will teach the voters a good lesson when they must make up their minds at the next general election. I admit that Wellingborough's council tax increased by a large amount—some 57 per cent.—this year. That increase was, of course, greeted by the Labour party as news that Conservative local government does not work, but it is not as simple as that: it never is. What is the history of the council, once Conservative and now Conservative and Independent?
For several years, the council has given a £200 rebate to everyone paying band D council tax in the area. In other words, no one in Wellingborough has paid a penny towards the services that have been provided by the borough council—and it is not a low spender: the level of services is high, and has not been cut. Even this year, there is still a £45-per-head subsidy of the band D rate of the county council's precept.
I could understand it if Wellingborough's tax had gone through the roof in comparison with that of other councils. However, only four London councils—Conservative-controlled—and the Isles of Scilly are asking for less money. It is a pity that ours is no longer the lowest council tax in the country. Why is that? The reason is pretty straightforward. First, much of the council's money was invested, and because interest rates have fallen—which we welcome—the increase in the reserves was less than it had been in previous years. Secondly, the council was faced with the possibility of local government reorganisation. The chairman of a neighbouring Labour authority said, "Wait until we merge: we cannot wait to get our hands on your money." Realistically, the leaders of Wellingborough council decided to invest in the future of the town. They spent more than £3 million on a new theatre, and over £1 million on redeveloping the town centre.
I should have thought that such policies were reasonable, given that we still had one of the lowest council taxes in the country. Moreover, we are still subsidising the county precept. In the eyes of the local Labour party, however, this is a Tory tax disaster. The party tells us that the Wellingborough Tories were squandering our hard-won reserves, and that the good times were coming to an end. It has said:


The prudent management Wellingborough pronounces was thrown to the winds as reserves were plundered.
But what are the facts? When the issue of spending £3 million on the Castle theatre arose, did the Labour group vote against it? No: all its members were in favour. When the council had to decide whether between £1 million and £2 million should be spent on the town centre, did the Labour group vote against it? No: again, it was in favour. What it did vote against was the budget proposed for this year. Why was that? Because it thought that more money should have been given to certain voluntary organisations. Now, the Labour group has the nerve—the gall and hypocrisy—to produce a leaflet criticising the present level of the council tax. That is why I think that we should have had a debate about hypocrisy.
The Labour group brought the prospective parliamentary candidate into the argument. He says—using his own delightful phraseology—
Labour has consistently warned that the Tories are the party of high taxation, and this is now shown to be true in Wellingborough.
I have news for the prospective parliamentary candidate. If he knew anything about Northamptonshire and the finances of local authorities there, he would be aware that neighbouring Northampton—Labour-controlled—neighbouring East Northamptonshire—Labour-controlled—neighbouring Corby—Labour-controlled—and neighbouring Kettering—Labour-controlled—are demanding roughly £100 per band more than is being levied in Wellingborough. Be it through the mouths of its councillors or through the mouth of its prospective parliamentary candidate, the local Labour party is talking pure hypocrisy.
The Labour party often tells us that local government is used cynically as a form of electioneering. Wellingborough borough council can be accused of only one thing: giving their own money back to the people of Wellingborough. The only inference that can be drawn from the Labour party's leaflet is that it would not have given that money back. It would have sat on it, just as it is sitting on money in Essex. Members of the Labour party think that they know best; they do not believe in giving back money that people have paid in, which has increased their investments. I accuse the local Labour party of total hypocrisy, and what I have said underlines what we heard this afternoon from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
It does not even end there, however. Unfortunately, we also have a Labour-controlled county council. For the past two years, my colleagues and I have worked with the Labour leadership to try to secure a better deal for Northamptonshire in terms of the revenue support grant. This year, after a long battle, we obtained some £12 million more for the county. The biggest increase was the increase in funds to go directly to the school governors, to enable school budgets to cope with the teachers' pay increase.
What did the county council do? Since it has been in power, it has spent virtually every minute deploring the fact that it has not enough money to spend on education, the fact that teachers are liable to be made redundant and the fact that class sizes will have to increase; but what did it do? It drew a smokescreen over the issue, transferring some money from capital expenditure and trying to pretend that that was the revenue expenditure that it was putting into schools. It has been calculated that we

received an increase of some 6 per cent. in the funds that our schools are entitled to have, and that the county council passed on only some 4.8 per cent., leaving a considerable deficit.
Why would a county council that was so concerned about teachers, class sizes and the possible anxieties of parents act in that way? Could it possibly be that the council knows that if a few teachers lose their jobs as a result of its policies, and if class sizes increase and parents are upset for the same reason, the people concerned will be angry with the Government rather than the council? I regard that as one of the most hypocritical and cynical attitudes that I have ever seen in local government.

Mr. William Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way.
Surely the cynicism goes a step further. Each year, we have been told that there will be swingeing reductions in the number of schoolteachers; but we now know from a parliamentary answer that the number of teachers in Northamptonshire schools has risen each year since 1991. Labour says one thing in order to frighten the voters, while concealing the truth.

Sir Peter Fry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can also enlighten him. The number of teachers who have lost their jobs—the total last year was seven—has been much less than the number who have been given jobs in my constituency. That is a long way short of the hundreds of redundancies that the Labour party was claiming would take place.
I have tried to make the point that, whether it be at local district council or at county level, we have been fed the wrong information. We have seen twisting of the truth, cynicism and hypocrisy, which we had come to know in the old Labour party. Of course, however, it is not the old Labour party any more—it is the new Labour party. The only problem is that I see the same old tired faces in Wellingborough, Corby, Northampton and Kettering. The Labour party has not really changed and the things that I have specified show that it has no intention of changing.
Given the things that I have been proving this evening and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who leads for the Opposition, I am astonished that the latter had the cheek to table his motion and to choose this issue for debate. His party is keen to ensure that his proposals are implemented. That is why the Opposition Benches have been so crowded today.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There is methodology in the Government's madness. In determining standard spending assessments, they use a system that is manipulated to achieve certain results. On 31 January, when we debated the local government finance report, I tried to spell out the methodology's effect on North East Derbyshire district council and how the system hit and hammered that region. Tonight, I want to talk about how the methodology hits Derbyshire county council in as serious a way.
When Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister, I asked her whether she would compliment Derbyshire county council because it had the smallest class sizes of any shire county.


Her response was that I must be pleased with the Government's record, presumably because the Government's policies had had some impact on what Derbyshire county council had been able to do.
The position now is that Derbyshire county council has the worst record in terms of primary school classes with more than 36 pupils: 7.6 per cent. of its pupils are in such classes. As I mentioned in an intervention, the average primary class size is 27.9. Derbyshire is joint worst with Lancashire, which is hit equally by the arrangements on standard spending assessment and by the move that has taken place. If the Conservatives wished to gain some kudos from Derbyshire having small class sizes in 1988–89, they must take considerable blame for class sizes in Derbyshire at present and the crisis in education.
The argument is often produced about Labour authorities that, somehow, they hold too much money back centrally and do not provide enough to schools out of SSAs. That does not operate in relation to Derbyshire. In the list of English shire counties, only four have lower central expenditure per pupil than Derbyshire and only four provide a lower percentage amount. Derbyshire, therefore, has had to be careful about the moneys that it spends because of the pressures on it.
If we contrast the budget level in 1989–90 with the 1996–97 capping limits for the SSA, Derbyshire's increase in that period is the smallest of any shire county. The budget of some shire counties—including West Sussex, Kent and East Sussex—has increased by more than twice that of Derbyshire. All told, the budget of 21 counties increased by 50 per cent. or more in that period. If we compare grant-related expenditure with the SSA over that period, Derbyshire comes out fifth worst.
If Derbyshire county council had received the average provision for shire counties, there would have been no cuts in its programmes, instead of cuts that have totalled £196 million. Its band D council tax is £529, but the average is £463. The argument in relation to council tax is used against Labour councils by the Government and it needs turning round. Derbyshire's band D council tax is high and above average because of the problems that the methodology that determines the amounts of money available imposes on the council. Pressure on the council has led it into those problems.
Likewise, Derbyshire county council spends £575 per head on services, but the average in shire counties is £636—those are Audit Commission figures. That is not to the detriment of Derbyshire county council. It is due to the circumstances in which the council finds itself.
Let us compare Derbyshire with Hertfordshire county council, which had similar grant-related expenditure just before the move to SSAs. At present, Hertfordshire has £80 million more available. Over the period, its SSA has increased by more than 48 per cent., whereas Derbyshire's has increased by only 28 per cent. In Hertfordshire, £163 more is spent on each primary school pupil than in Derbyshire; for secondary school students, £199 more is spent.
If Derbyshire had the same SSA as Hertfordshire, it would have available another £11.2 million for primary school expenditure and another £10.8 million for secondary school expenditure. That is an argument not against the position in Hertfordshire, but against the

imbalance in the SSA structure. I mention other comparable authorities—West Sussex, Kent and East Sussex and Hertfordshire—to ask why they receive resources that are not available for an authority such as Derbyshire.
The major answer is the area cost adjustment. The 11 counties that, over the period of the SSA, have been the top gainers in relation to education have all received area cost adjustment moneys, which are not available for counties at the lower end. There is always a method by which the Government manipulate the moneys that are available for councils. In district councils, there are problems because of the enhanced population and movements in population. In North East Derbyshire district council, there is a smaller daytime than nighttime population. That is used against the council when calculating the area cost adjustment.
Similarly, the area cost adjustment is continually used in calculations. Education has a number of blocks under which matters are determined, initially based on student numbers: primary, secondary, post-16, under-fives and other blocks. The area cost adjustment factor applies to each block and has been a growing factor in standard spending assessments. Between 1988–89 and 1995–96, the amount allocated to the area cost adjustment has increased from £418 million to £1,1658 million, but that money has been made available to some authorities but not to others.
Furthermore, in 1990–91, the area cost adjustment was extended to the entire south-east region. False comparisons are made between Labour-controlled authorities, Conservative-controlled authorities and other authorities as a result of Labour's triumphs in the past few elections. The true comparison is between Conservative parliamentary seats and Labour parliamentary seats, but the formula is used to manipulate the figures against Labour areas.
The area cost adjustment was extended—at one time it applied only to education—and had to cover all services. Once the Government discovered a method that they could use to manipulate figures, they considerably advanced and extended it. Between 1988–89 and 1995–96, the total amount of the standard spending assessment being determined by the area cost adjustment has increased from 1.7 per cent. to 4.3 per cent. If an authority is unable to claim the area cost adjustment, that will have very serious effects on its finances. It is vital, therefore, that a proper assessment is made. It must take into account labour costs in different authorities such as Derbyshire when equations are being calculated. The methodological fix for shire counties is similar to the methodological fix for enhanced population in relation to district councils.
Provision is made for additional educational needs. For children of lone parents, for children born outside the United Kingdom or when the head of the family was outside the United Kingdom—we are now discussing ethnic minorities—old census figures are used rather than up-to-date figures.
The sparsity and density factors tell not only against district councils but against counties. It is reasonable to assume that Derbyshire should do relatively well on the sparsity indicator. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was in the Chamber earlier. He has a massive constituency, much of which is thinly populated. The Peak district is also in the county. However, that indicator measures only super sparsity, and counties such


as Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire are deemed to be sparser in provision per population than Derbyshire. Derbyshire has the great peculiarity of being able to score below average in terms of sparsity, and density, of population. There is great nonsense, therefore, about the provision in that area. The sparsity factor, for instance, counts for 1.3 per cent. of education expenditure in the standard spending assessments.
The problem is not only service provision—there are also problems in capital expenditure and capital money that is available to shire counties. Derbyshire's capital problems are, in many ways, even worse than its budget difficulties. Since 1991–92, there has been a steady annual decline in the money authorised in basic credit approvals—from £30.1 million in 1991–92 to £5.8 million in 1996–97.
A measure of Derbyshire's need is that it must maintain 1,000 properties, including 506 schools, 56 libraries, 31 fire stations and 200 social services establishments. The county has no money available for new projects, but 450 temporary buildings—many of which are classrooms older than 40 years—need urgent repair and replacement. Some buildings have already been taken out of use, and many more will have to close in the next two years. Derbyshire needs £8 million to tackle the most urgent cases, and the total cost of replacing all 450 temporary buildings will be about £50 million. Another £8 million is needed for residential homes for children and older people and for essential road repairs.
Derbyshire's finances are tremendously affected by those arrangements, which have created pressures on the council tax that must be charged and in service cuts. Any reasonable person, studying all the indicators, would not think of Derbyshire as a profligate authority, as the Government keep pretending when making arguments against it.
Derbyshire has a particular problem with fire services. The formula for fire services has always contained a peculiarity whereby coast lines receive exaggerated resources. Derbyshire, being tucked in the middle of the country, has no coast line. I do not deny that some money needs to be spent in coastal areas, but I question the weight that is given to such factors in determining allocations. The Government always have an argument that is plausible on paper, but they then push it to the Nth degree so that the situation becomes completely reversed.
The Fire Brigades Union is balloting its members on strike action. That strike will be directed towards the county council. That county council must makes cuts to staff, appliances and other provisions. A crisis is being created that is not of the council's own making because it is a matter of balancing the books. Arguments may be advanced about this year's settlement—for example, what its percentage was and whether it made acceptable provision for the fire brigade—but we must always base our comparison on the whole period during which the standard spending assessment has applied. There has been an annual deterioration, and once the council has used up all its reserves, it must try to provide whatever it can under the capping rules. Authorities should not be placed in the situation in which Derbyshire county council and North East Derbyshire district council have found themselves.
A ready way out of the problem of deciding how much money has to be spent through the rate support grant and what the total is to be for the counties would

be to have a fair and reasonable methodology to determine what resources are available in various areas. I once spoke to a group of teachers and others and explained Derbyshire's SSA as well as I could. One person said that she was astonished that there was a formula. She thought that a figure was plucked from the air and that it was decided arbitrarily to give Derbyshire only a small sum of money. I had to explain that that was not the case because we still had the remnants of a democratic system. If the Government acted as that person thought, they would be taken to court on judicial review. I explained that they had to have a system and a formula but that they fiddled the formula. They pushed their proposals through Parliament, thanks to their majority, and the system had to be examined all the time and unpicked.
At last, the area cost adjustment is being examined by an independent body this year. Things could be different in future—they will be different because that lot over there are on their way out and we shall have to put the mess right.
I have been making speeches on standard spending assessments and local authority grants for eight or nine years. I have led deputations, written letters and done all sorts of things to try to get more money for North East Derbyshire and for Derbyshire as a whole, but not one ha'penny has been gained—not for any lack of effort on my part or on the part of many others but simply because of the Government's refusal to accept a reasonable and decent formula. They come up with the same sophistry time and time again to defend the indefensible—the system that they operate.

Mr. Eric Pickles: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), but I cannot help but feel that Derbyshire would be in a much better position had it not spent the 1980s attacking the Government and demanding to spend extra money, especially the sums that it spent subsidising school meals with the result that primary school children now face the obscenity of having only three quarters of an apple at lunch time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was right to castigate hon. Members for the fact that the Chamber has been so empty. This is an important debate, and we have witnessed history being made this evening. We have heard expounded a doctrine that explains Labour's stance on council tax increases.
There were times when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) sounded like a social worker making excuses for a particularly recalcitrant and violent client: "He doesn't mean to do it, your Honour. He's basically a good man but whenever he sees a possibility to put up taxes and increase services, he just can't help himself." I suppose that we should call the new doctrine "Dobson's doctrine". It is right to call it Dobson's doctrine of irresistible impulse because the Labour party cannot avoid putting up taxes and increasing services.
I have known a few Labour councillors in my time—indeed, I can see an ex-colleague across the Chamber. They are perfectly charming as individuals once one gets


over the look of their sharp suits and the whiff of cheap champagne, but collectively they engage in a form of mass hysteria which means that they have to put up taxes and increase services.
A Labour council is basically a high-spend, high-tax council. It is therefore not surprising that the gap between Conservative and Labour councils has increased—the difference on a band D council tax is now £225.
I recently spoke to an ordinary working-class couple from Liverpool. The average council tax payer there faces a bill of £1,006. The couple rightly asked how they were supposed to pay that as it is equivalent to a month's wage being taken out of good people's pockets. Time and again, Labour has increased the council tax—council tax payers pay more but get less. When the Government are putting more money back into people's pockets, the Labour party is taking it out.
At the time of the standard spending assessment announcement last year, the leader of the new joint authority, Sir Jeremy Beecham, said that the settlement does not match what councils are spending as if that were some criterion. It is a potty idea. Nowhere else in the world, and nowhere else in the private sector or the public sector in Britain, would an organisation say that, having overspent last year, it must have compensation this year.
There is an alternative way to secure extra resources. The problem with the Labour party is that it can find extra resources only by taxing people. Last year, the Audit Commission examined how councils managed their work forces. After all, 60 per cent. of a council's budget is spent on the work force. The commission's study of non-manual staff found that few authorities had a consistent and coherent approach to three crucial questions: how many staff do they need, how much should they be paid, and how can they get the best from their staff?
The argument that a redistribution of the share of grant means extra taxes and fewer services is the philosophy of despair. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I have sight of his press release, which was issued today. It states:
The Government are deliberately driving up Council Tax and charges for council services at the same time that they are forcing councils to cut services for local people … And they intend this process to continue.
That does not seem to square with the attitude of a political party that is also committed to increasing the share that is raised locally.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke today about Labour's document entitled, "Renewing Democracies, Rebuilding Communities", which states:
We believe that it would be better for local people and make for a healthier democracy if councils were responsible for raising locally a much higher proportion of the money they invest and spend".
The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) says that that relates to a return to the uniform business rate. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) seemed to be rubbing his hands together with glee at the prospect of getting hold of that money. We recall the times when such people had the opportunity to deal with the business rate—businesses went under because of the way that the rate was skewed against them.
If Labour Members are looking for extra resources, let Labour authorities collect the council tax. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras conceded that more money should be collected but, for the record, let me list some collection figures. Lambeth collects 55 per cent. of the total due, Hackney collects 69 per cent., Newham 72 per cent., Lewisham 79 per cent., Southwark 79 per cent., Liverpool 81 per cent., Haringey 82 per cent., Islington 82 per cent., Camden 82 per cent., and Manchester 83 per cent. That represents £90 million of extra resources to those councils. No doubt Labour Members would say that Lambeth takes care of most of that £90 million, but even if one excludes Lambeth from the list, there are still £70 million worth of extra resources available.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Are not those figures comparable with the money collected under the old rating system? The increase in the amount not collected came with the poll tax—that much vaunted tax that everybody hated. The figures that the hon. Gentleman is quoting are comparable to those under the old rating system.

Mr. Pickles: If we were to include figures for the community charge, the figures that I have quoted would be much worse. We would be talking about a much lower percentage of collection. That is the problem that the hon. Gentleman has to face. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the figures were because of deprived areas that cannot collect as much. In volume 2 of the Audit Commission's report, page 47 says that areas such as Coventry, Rotherham, Doncaster, Wakefield, Leeds, and—I must say to the hon. Member for Bradford, South—even Bradford is managing to do better than the councils that I have mentioned. So it is possible to collect in deprived areas.
The Audit Commission says:
Only about a quarter of metropolitan councils and London boroughs met this target.
This is a serious problem affecting councils' ability to provide services. Improving performance by even 1 per cent. can bring in significant extra income. For example, some metropolitan councils are due £35 million in council tax. Every 1 per cent. extra they collect in council tax would enable them to provide an extra 8,000 people with five hours of home help work per week or to reduce the level of council tax.
The money exists in local councils' budgets, and we know that the settlement was in line with inflation, yet the Labour party would make the position much worse. It would abolish capping, introduce the minimum wage and reduce competitive tendering. Councils can easily manage within budgets under the capping level, as has been demonstrated by the few that have been capped this year.
The important thing is what councils do with the services. As I said earlier, in my area of Essex, to the eternal shame of that county council, the Labour and Liberal councillors decided to parade the old and vulnerable to speak for the council. Yet what do we find? We find that the council underspent on social services last year by £2 million. None of that underspend was necessary, and no one should have come to my surgeries crying because their home helps had been taken away. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) wants to call time. I must tell him that if his friends on Essex council had cared for the elderly, none of my speech would have been necessary. The council also intends to take another £2 million out of resources for the elderly.
I have discovered that the highest increase in the council's spending in the south-east comes from Brentwood. There has been a 17 per cent. increase there. That is the council that made a mess of the local government review, cabling, council finances and has allowed precious manufacturing jobs to slip through its fingers. What did that Liberal-controlled council debate instead? Last week it debated the possibility of joining Charter 88. I must say to the members of Brentwood council that if people in Brentwood wanted to drink champagne with socialists, they would go and live in Islington. Such action is singularly inappropriate for a local council.
The Labour party is completely out of control. It brings out the old arguments over Westminster, yet we have conclusively shown that if one bases figures on the amount of money that goes to Tower Hamlets, a similar list can be produced.

Ms Armstrong: indicated dissent.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady's list is completely bogus, it is a waste of everyone's time and is completely meaningless. [Interruption.] We know from that that the Labour party's reaction to abolish capping and introduce the minimum wage and the social chapter would add to the problems.
I should like to quote from Hansard because the following two lines seem to sum up the Labour party's inability to give us a figure. When challenged with how much extra the Labour party would provide, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said:
I do not endorse anyone's numbers but my own, and the hon. Gentleman is not getting one from me."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1032.]
That seems to undermine Labour's position completely. If Labour Members believe that the settlement is inadequate, they should say so—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am very tired of seated interventions. In fact, it seems to be almost a running commentary at times.

Mr. Pickles: I am most grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. The noise from the Front Benches is beginning to sound like air conditioning. The Labour party's pure dilemma is that if it believes that the settlement is underfunded, it should say so and show some courage in its convictions. If it does not, it should display a little honesty to local government.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: It is a basic tenet of democratic government that it should be fully accountable the electorate for its actions. I suggest that accountability can be reinforced through taxation. It is important for the electorate to understand the financial effects of the Government's decisions. At a local government level, that clearly means that communities should be able to vote for increased or decreased public spending and to feel the effects of that decision in local tax levels. It is interesting to note that one of the primary aims of the United Kingdom community charge was to

increase local accountability, but concerns about equity, administrative problems and too high a level of grant meant that such an increase was not achieved in practice.
Local discretion on taxation is severely limited in the UK. Other countries in Europe have a broader tax base and more local discretion, thus increasing accountability. That very accountability is further weakened by non-elected bodies with responsibility for service provision. There are many examples of such bodies. We have seen the creation of independent hospital trusts, housing associations, school governing bodies, and so on. There is no doubt that local authorities, as bodies representing local government and local democracy, are under threat. To a very large extent the degree of financial independence that local authorities enjoyed has been removed. I referred to certain quangos earlier.
When a democratically elected central Government have decided on a macro-economic policy that is based on an attack on inflation through control of the money supply in one way, we find that they eye local authorities with a great deal of concern. The Government believe that local authorities are inherently profligate, which is absolute nonsense.
In practice, that perceived threat is definitely exaggerated. It assumes that all local authorities would pursue an united policy of high expenditure. It ignores the constraints imposed by the fact that the larger share of local authority expenditure is determined by central Government grant policies. Above all, it assumes that a local electorate would tolerate high local taxation policies without wreaking electoral vengeance on their perpetrators. Nevertheless, there is an element of truth in the belief that local authorities pose a degree of threat to a tightly controlled central economic policy.
A vital prerequisite is that local authorities should enjoy some financial autonomy. In addition to the element of central funding by formula, there should be an element of local revenue-raising on an equitable basis which local authorities would determine and control. Thus local authorities, answerable to their electorates, would determine local priorities and the extent to which they were prepared to resource them.
Currently, local authorities are being choked by central Government. The Government emphasise the need for good budgeting and cuts in expenditure. This is the fifth year of basic cuts. There is simply nothing left to cut and that is why we now face the appalling prospect of dismissing teachers, cutting community care services and cutting items such as meals for the needy in the community and in schools.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does my hon. Friend agree that while local government has been under threat from central Government in terms of the lack of resources to which he refers, new responsibilities have frequently been imposed on local authorities, particularly care in the community services? Although such services are supposed to be fully funded, they often are not, which imposes an even greater burden on the local exchequer.

Mr. Llwyd: That point is well made. There is an increasing burden, although I do not like to use the word "burden" in connection with community care because it is valuable. However, it costs a lot of money and there is a shortfall in the funding for it.


Local government is being dismantled by central Government because they control the purse strings. Let us consider the new authority of Gwynedd, which comprises Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire. The authority has had to cut services quite substantially this year because of the terms of the Welsh Office local government revenue settlement for 1996–97. The settlement implies an expenditure cut of 1.3 per cent. compared with the council's budget for 1995–96. When the transfer of funds for year four of care in the community is added, the cut becomes 0.2 per cent. As a result of the lack of Exchequer funding next year, coupled with shifts of grant due to the deficiencies in the distribution formula, many new councils, including Gwynedd, will face massive council tax increases in 1996–97.
To alleviate the problem, the Welsh Office has made available a council tax reduction grant of £45 million which is payable to certain councils only. It ensures, at least in theory, that no council will need to increase its council tax for the coming year by more than 25 per cent. Gwynedd's share is £1.991 million, which is equivalent to a band D council tax subsidy of £47. As part of the settlement, the Welsh Office announced expenditure capping criteria for 1996–97, which will allow councils to increase spending over 1995–96 levels by 3 per cent. The cap for Gwynedd is £112.003 million.
I know that it is not always useful to bandy figures in the Chamber, but I want to make one or two points. Gwynedd council is having to struggle as best it can after five years of consistently deep cuts. The conclusion that can be drawn from the figures I have given—the Welsh Office figures—is that the Welsh Office may seek to narrow the 4.4 per cent. gap between budgets and spending norms in 1997–98. That will mean substantial cuts in service levels.
Where will the new cuts come, after five years of cuts? The finance committee of the new council has looked frantically in every direction. The additional temporary reorganisation-related costs of £755,000 will be financed from the funds inherited from surpluses. Some £500,000 of major items of repair and maintenance of roads and buildings will be transferred from the revenue budget to the capital budget. I am told that there will be immediate cuts of 0.75 per cent. in the schools and social services budgets and 1 per cent. in other budgets, saving £709,000. The balance of the gap will be met by general balances, so all in all, it is a short-term strategy just to keep heads above water. Heaven alone knows what will happen next year. Apart from the surpluses on collection funds of £1.7 million, there will undoubtedly be cuts in valuable services. They are totally unjustified and will bite deeply in Gwynedd, which serves a large rural expanse.
The leader of the new authority recently explained the 25 per cent. council tax rise. In a letter, he says:
The simple reason for the increase is that the grant from the Welsh Office is insufficient to meet the effects of inflation and the added burden wholly created by central Government.
William Hague, the Welsh Secretary of State, stated in Parliament that the Council Tax in Wales this year would have to increase on average by about 17 per cent.
Why? Well, in the last budget the Tories cut 1p off income tax.

That is the immorality of the situation. That cut has to be paid for in some way and the burden will fall on householders. That is an unfair means of taxation, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made clear. It is a regressive form of taxation in any event.
I cannot understand why, under the formula, some councils are badly dealt with while others seem to come out well. If Gwynedd council was treated the same as Westminster council, it would be possible to hand back money to the taxpayer and still provide services.
We have heard a lot today about fire authorities. They are very important and other hon. Members have rightly referred to the bravery of the firemen and women on whom we rely so heavily. They devote themselves entirely to their public duties, always with the greatest valour. However, they do not seem to qualify for money to run the service.
The North Wales fire authority was thrust on the people of Wales. against the wishes of the people of Gwynedd and Clwyd. There we are, we have got the new authority. The Government said that part of the reason for the reorganisation was increased efficiency. However, the new authority is not just disappointed but is scared rigid by the level of funding. I remind hon. Members that north Wales has a huge coastline which is one of the important criteria for funding. I also remind hon. Members that under the present basic capital allowance, £296,000 will be allowed under that heading compared with the previous combined total for Gwynedd fire authority and Clwyd fire authority in the previous year of £1.2 million. How can anyone run such a crucial service on such a budget? The decision is utterly indefensible and disgraceful.
The fire authority recognises that point and wrote many weeks ago to the Home Office asking for an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary. It has not yet received a reply. As the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) mentioned, he and I have asked for some progress on the matter and I am sure that other north Wales Members have done the same. I rang the Home Office last Wednesday and last Thursday. I was promised faithfully that I would be told today over the telephone when we could meet, but I am still waiting for that call. It is simply not good enough. Fire authorities often have to deal with life-or-death situations. It is simply not good enough to give Members of Parliament and fire authorities the runaround. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, because he too has responsibility in the matter, to give me an answer. If he is not careful, there will be blood on his hands. I ask him respectfully to make it known to the Home Office that we in north Wales want an urgent meeting and we want it now before there is a disaster. I ask him to respond to that point.
Central Government' s constraints have forced upon the people of Caernarfonshire and Meirionnydd, or the new Gwynedd, a couple of choices—to uphold the standards of service provided by the authority or to cut them yet further to an unacceptable level. Logically, the first choice is the only one. Given that, and central Government's chronic and serious underfunding, there will have to be a substantial council tax rise. But central Government should realise that the council tax payer is a far more sophisticated person that they imagine. He or she can see through this fiasco by central Government and, in a few months' time, they will have an opportunity to show this


Administration what they feel. There is no doubt that the Conservative Administration will pay for decimating local government, and the price will be high.

Mr. Richard Tracey: One thing is certain—someone with a Labour council will have a council tax bill that is 50 per cent. higher than someone with a Conservative council. There is no doubt about that. If one looks down the chart of council tax bills for this year, one sees a long list of Labour authorities heading the list, starting with the iniquitous £1,006 for a band D property—presumably a semi-detached house—in Liverpool. At the other end, not surprisingly, one sees the low levels of council tax charged by Conservative authorities.
In light of that fact, I thought that it was a brazen gesture by Labour to have an Opposition motion today on the council tax. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that it is 1 April and said that the motion might be an April fool's joke, but it is getting late in the day for that. The Opposition motion uses the old line of blaming the Government for the high council tax levels in Labour-controlled areas. Labour is not alone in that. While council tax bills are 50 per cent. higher in Labour councils, the figure for the three or four councils controlled by the Liberal Democrats in London is 42 per cent.
One would have thought that when Labour tabled the motion, it would first have given us some idea of what extra money it would provide. If Labour claims that councils are hard pressed because of the Government, it should give a figure. But as with everything else, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—the shadow Chancellor—has told Labour Members not to say a word on the matter because the Government might start costing the figures and detailing the total tax to be presented to the nation by Labour at the general election.
Labour has hinted in its rather vacuous presentation of policy that it would probably lift capping. There is a warning for the people of this nation—the council tax in Labour councils would go through the roof if the cap came off. Labour has also hinted on a number of occasions that it would like the business rate to be back in, as they put it, "democratic local control".

Mr. Sutcliffe: Hear, hear.

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) is obviously not speaking on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench. That is obviously the common view, however, in the Labour party. That is where Labour will find the extra money—from lifting the cap, so that local domestic council taxpayers will pay, and from local businesses, which will be well and truly soaked.
Conservative councils have come out extremely well in this year's chart—there is no question about that. As I have said, Labour-controlled Liverpool—where a band D council taxpayer has to find £1,006—is at one end of the scale. At the other end, the bill in Westminster—endlessly maligned this afternoon by Labour Front Benchers—is £295 for a band D property. In Wandsworth, the figure is £434, and in Brent it is £456. My right hon. Friend the

Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), with all his experience in local government, paid a well-deserved tribute to the Conservative councillors in Brent.
Those figures are on the record for Conservative-controlled councils, but we must look also at the shadow budgets produced by Conservative oppositions around the country. At this point I shall move away from talking about London in broad terms, as I wish to refer to my own local authority—the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, controlled currently by a Liberal Democrat authority. There, the Conservatives produced a shadow budget that convincingly undercut the Liberal Democrats' budget by £26 for a band D property.
It is interesting that, in the oldest royal borough in the country, the council was planning to do away with its heritage officer—the person who pulls together all the historical records and puts across the truly historic message of the ancient royal borough. That job was going to be axed because of the Liberal Democrats' budget. The Liberal Democrats have created seven "neighbourhood councils" in the borough to which money is devolved. Amazingly, the money to pay for the heritage officer was found by the three Conservative-controlled neighbourhoods and—interestingly enough—by the Labour-controlled neighbourhood. The Liberal Democrats were determined to wipe out the heritage officer of our oldest royal borough, but fortunately she has been saved because of the good management of other neighbourhoods.
In many areas, the shadow budget proves that the Conservatives could manage things better. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is not here. He might be interested to know that Camden council—his local authority—is planning a 13 per cent. increase in council tax from £688 to £779 for band D. The Conservatives, however, produced a shadow budget that would keep the figure down to £635. That assumes—among other things—that the collection rates for the council tax were improved from 93 per cent. to 98 per cent. We have heard a number of times in the debate that the efficiency of Conservative councils produces those excellent levels of council tax.
We have also heard about total external support. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that if all councils in London received the same kind of external grant as Tower Hamlets, some amazing figures would be produced. Wandsworth, for example, could have handed back £1,250 to council taxpayers, and even Lambeth would have made savings, with the bill being £785 better than it turned out to be. I accept that there is need in Tower Hamlets, but there is also need in North Westminster, North Kensington and Hackney, and all those areas would have done far better if they had had the level of support that the Government have given to Tower Hamlets. So let us not hear any more of this talk about some sort of preferential treatment by the Government delivering the extremely efficient levels of council tax for Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth.
The other point that has been made—I make no apology for repeating it once more—is about the level of efficiency that the Audit Commission has found in Conservative councils compared with that in Labour councils. One would think that Islington, with the right


hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, as one of its residents, would do better. In the Audit Commission's view, Islington is the most inefficient, useless and incompetent council certainly in London and probably in the whole country. It spends the third highest per head of population, yet its results are appalling. It has the worst exam results and it is the slowest in London at dealing with planning applications. Of course, there are other incompetent Labour councils in London. Labour Hackney is poor; it collects less than 70 per cent. of its council tax. Newham is little better.
Islington has the Leader of the Opposition as a resident—the man who claims that his new Labour party will be so efficient at running the country. Yet there on his doorstep is a classic example of what Labour is like when it is administering anything.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: The yah-boo style of the Opposition tonight—or the Government, soon to be the Opposition—has not impressed me one little bit. I do not think that it would have impressed the thousands of Labour, Tory and Liberal councillors throughout the country. If they had heard the debate tonight they would have been appalled at the lack of respect for the way in which they had operated their councils during the past 10 or 12 years.
I start off by defending my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Earlier, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) only partially quoted Hansard. My hon. Friend said:
I do not endorse anyone's numbers but my own, and the hon. Gentleman is not getting one from me.
He went on to say, but the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar did not quote this:
I explained that earlier. In case the Conservative simpletons did not notice, that was what one of my earlier responses meant."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1032.]
I have to say that the word "simpletons" comes to mind when I consider the quality of the debate that we are having this evening.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar was for a brief period leader of Bradford council. It was a very brief period from 1988 to 1990. I congratulate him on the efforts that he made on our behalf. The council was then controlled by the casting vote of the Lord Mayor. It is now controlled by a Labour majority of more than 16. That is due in many respects to the hon. Gentleman's efforts.
I should have thought that the debate tonight would centre on the good work of local authorities across the spectrum of politics. This country relies on the work of local councillors. They know that the make-up of the council tax does not reflect their needs. They would rather not be frustrated by the Government. They would prefer to develop a tax system in local government that met local needs.
We have a Tory Government who are paranoid about local authorities to the extent that in every other policy they are deregulating and loosening the ropes, but in local government they are not doing so. More than 150 pieces

of legislation have been passed to tighten the restrictions on local authorities. In many local authorities up to 85 per cent. of the budget is predetermined by central Government. That is not the way forward. Local accountability and democracy is what we want to see.
Despite what the Government have said, Labour local government works. We have the facts to prove it. The facts that we are interested in are the number of people who vote for us. That is why there are more than 200 Labour authorities and only 13, soon to be fewer, Tory authorities. Whatever methods the Government try to use to detract from Labour local government, it makes no difference. The other week we had the Audit Commission performance indicators. A Minister went along to the Audit Commission to argue that the figures were not correct and argue a different case. The Audit Commission said no.
Conservative Members refer to the top 10 and the bottom 10 authorities in terms of performance. They are likely to be Labour authorities when the majority of authorities are Labour. The sad fact is that the Government do not want to see local government, of whatever political shade, develop. We have seen 16 years of this. The Government have taken away the powers of local government and put them in the hands of quangos. A fifth of public spending is now in the hands of non-accountable, undemocratic bodies. There are now more than 170,000 quangocrats, as compared with 30,000 councillors.
Authorities had have to increase the council tax this year as a result of the unfairness of the system, knowing that they will have to cut services. In areas such as mine, cuts in services hit hardest those who can least afford to be hit. We must have a Government who understand.
I have been along with colleagues from local authorities in my area to see Ministers. We get sympathy. Ministers say that they understand the problems and how, in Bradford's case, the formula does not accommodate the uniqueness of our city, with its rising population and school rolls. We get tea and sympathy, but no extra resources or any promises that Ministers will examine different methods of calculation.
There must be a different approach under which people are consulted and involved rather than frustrated. Bradford people will face a tax increase of 9.2 per cent. Again, they are the ones who can least afford it. A third of the population of 490,000 is on some form of income supplement. As I said earlier, it is a growing population.
To digress a little on to the education capital programme, an all-party delegation from Bradford went to see the Minister to say that Bradford needed £40 million to £60 million for education capital spending. The delegation was of local people who knew the local problems in each of the constituencies. The Minister said that the Government were happy to hear about Bradford's problems and understood that the local authority was doing all that it could. Bradford has even tried to implement the private finance initiative—an idea that came from Labour and has been suggested by Tories as the way forward. The response to Bradford's all-party request for £40 million to £60 million was a measly £4 million. So it is obvious that the funding is not there.
Bradford's council has had to cut £12 million from its budget this year, even with the increase of 9.2 per cent. Bradford's cuts in the past three years have been more than £50 million. It cannot deliver services to the standard that is required when it is having to make cuts to that extent.
For the first time, charges have been introduced in our galleries and museums. The people of Bradford have always been proud of their cultural heritage. The council did not want to put museums and galleries out of the reach of those who could not afford to pay those charges. Under the present system it will have to do so. We are also going to have to increase charges for the elderly, for example for social service provision in day centres. Local democracy should be about being voted out if one does not do what local people want.
Although it is Labour party policy to bring back the business rate, the business community wants it as well because they have seen the benefits of being involved in partnership schemes and discussions. Bradford chamber of commerce is more than willing to support bringing the business rate back to the local authority because it wants to play its part within the local community. As an interesting aside, the business rate would have increased by 40 per cent. on revaluation, so the Government had to bring in a transitional relief. Local business must be encouraged to be part of the community—and they want to be a part.
Powers have been taken away from local government and given to unaccountable bodies such as the local training and enterprise councils and colleges. We need to bring those powers back.
It is appalling that Ministers attack Labour-controlled local authorities in the Chamber and yet go to them for photo calls on good practice, as they did in Bradford recently. In Bradford and other cities, Ministers have wanted to be a part of the publicity for good council practices, for example on closed circuit television, crime initiatives and road safety.
We should be looking into council finances. What about this nonsense of year-on-year spend? When the Budget was changed from April to November, local authorities had only four or five months to determine how to spend their moneys. They did not get the final figures for the spend for the year starting in April until the December of the previous year.
Perhaps we should be considering three-year plans for spending, which would give councils the opportunity for development and the chance to plan for the future. Instead, we are seeing political dogma—if it is anything to do with a Labour local authority, it is not good.
What of the paragons of virtue that have been put before us today? Westminster would damage people's health by putting them in flats full of asbestos. Brent is full of corruption and it is not the Labour party, but the Audit Commission that has said so, among others. So where are the paragons of virtue among Tory-controlled authorities?
That is not to say that there are no good Tory councillors. We have good Tory councillors in Bradford. When they see that the district has a need, they put the district and not their party politics first. They are doing so in the all-party bids that have been put to the Government. The sad thing about it is that the Government do not listen to them.
What do we get when we speak to Ministers? They say, "Why don't you sell it off?" and, "Why don't you privatise it?" They said that about old people's homes, children's playgrounds that are not in use and school playing fields. That is always their approach.
When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar led Bradford council, he had what he called the sale of the century. He was prepared to sell any of his city's assets, cultural or otherwise, for short-term gain at the expense of the long-term future of the district.
In education, things are so bad in Bradford that many children have corridors as classrooms. We have more temporary classrooms than anywhere else in the country. I see the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar returning to the Chamber, smiling. He talks about local need but he seems to have forgotten that, in 1985, under the old rating system, his group put the rates up by 36 per cent. when it was in control. I think that he was right to do so because he was meeting local needs. How interesting that he has changed his mind now.

Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy in giving way and I apologise for missing the earlier part of his speech. I remember that when Bradford council was Conservative-controlled, it used to put extra resources into education and extra teachers. When the Labour party took control, it made cuts. I also remember that when the council tried to renovate old people's homes, the Labour party opposed it and sold the same homes off to Labour councillors.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I am sorry that I gave way because the hon. Gentleman's memory is obviously failing him.

Mr. Dobson: CJD again.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Yes, too many beefburgers. Had the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar been here for the earlier part of my speech he would have heard about the cuts that Bradford has suffered over the years. He knows the true situation, but he is off and away—unfortunately, the people of Essex have him now.
Many Ministers saw compulsory competitive tendering as the way forward—the way to make council services more efficient and effective. The reality is this: wages and concern for conditions have dramatically reduced and job losses have affected people who could not afford to lose their jobs. Had the rules on competitive tendering been fair, one would have accepted that, but Bradford seems to have been singled out by the Government again. Bradmet, the organisation for direct works that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar was involved in setting up, has been barred from two contracts by the Government because of what they say are anti-competitive policies.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): What about Bradmet's missing £1.9 million?

Mr. Sutcliffe: The Minister is welcome to intervene, but not from a sedentary position. As he is interested, I hope that he will consider investigating the company that has won the highways contract. The relationship between senior civil servants and private sector company directors has been mentioned in the House before. I understand that


Tarmac has won the contract. Will he examine the activities of a Mr. J Hobson, who is a senior civil servant in his Department and also a director of Tarmac? Is that not a conflict of interest?

Sir Paul Beresford: I understand that such situations are being looked into, but where has the £1.9 million that has disappeared from Bradmet gone?

Mr. Sutcliffe: The Minister knows that there is an inquiry and that auditors and the Audit Commission have been heavily involved. If he has any problems about that, I am sure that he will let us know. He talks about the £1.9 million, but what about the disclosure that a senior civil servant is on the board of a company that is interested in a contract? I hope that he will examine that.

Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could assist the auditor by helping to find some of the papers that seem to have disappeared and the head of services who has suddenly gone ill?

Mr. Sutcliffe: If the Minister wants to pursue that, he can do it outside this debate. I would be only too willing to meet him at any time to discuss Bradford's problems. The trouble is that when we talk to him about them, he does not listen.
We need to make sure that local government gets its rightful place. After 17 years of Tory central Government when local government has not been appreciated, the next Labour Government—and that is not far off—will recognise the successes of Labour local government in adverse circumstances. When we have the resources, and the support of a central Government who understand how we need to develop local government, councillors will realise their worth. It is unfortunate that we cannot have a sensible debate on local government. We understand why; the Tories have given up on local government.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: It is extraordinary that this debate would be taking place on a day when 1,500 GP practices become fundholders and the majority of the population are being better cared for as a result. On the day when a new environment agency comes on stream and key European issues are to the fore, we get an April fools day debate with a motion worthy of a failed GCSE politics student. No doubt the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would merely declare that it seemed a good idea at the time, but his speech was unworthy of the House of Commons and in marked contrast to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The motion suggests that the disgraceful Labour council tax increases are somehow the Government's fault. Time after time, Labour spokesmen come to the Dispatch Box to say that they are ready for office, but when they make a shambles of the many councils that they control it is the Government's fault, not that of their party's administrations.
I shall confine most of my speech to local government and the council tax in the fair county of Kent. I start with Kent county council, which has had the misfortune of

being run by a coalition of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties since 1993. This year, we in Kent were immensely grateful to the Government for increasing their funding of Kent county council by 4.2 per cent. With inflation running at 2.8 per cent., that gives the lie to Labour's repeated claims about underfunding. The increased funding for Kent and most other authorities, which is ahead of inflation, speaks for itself.
Government funding for education in Kent has increased by 4 per cent., which means an extra £22.5 million for Kent schools. We have had the highest award in the country for school buildings—up by 7.5 per cent. Among the shire counties, we have received the highest amount from the Government for new roads and our road programme—£81 million. All the nonsense about inadequate Government funding just does not add up when one looks at the facts.
Despite the increase of 4.2 per cent. in funding from the Government for Kent county council, which is way ahead of inflation, the Lib-Lab pact running the county council has had the nerve to go to the council tax payers for an increase of 5.6 per cent. That might be thought worth while if it was to be spent on services, but school budgets in our county will increase this year by just 3.4 per cent.—a much lower figure than the increase in Government funding to the county council, and a much lower figure than the increase in the council tax. That follows on from last year when, despite an extra 2.4 per cent. in funding from the Government, the schools just got 1 per cent. extra—and that was after a monumental row which left the Labour party cowering under the school desks.
One has to ask whether such funding is due to incompetence on the part of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties or political malice. Let us consider incompetence on the part of Labour and Liberal Democrats on Kent county council. More than 50 per cent. of our secondary schools are now grant maintained and more than 50 per cent. of secondary school students are now in grant-maintained schools; yet the central education administration of Kent county council has not been reduced by anything like 50 per cent. The proof of the pudding is in the figures. The council keeps back £81 per child from schools throughout the county to be spent by the bureaucrats at county hall. That figure is the highest of any shire county in England. Our answer to that is that it should do better.
The council has spent a vast amount of money and has had its officers and lawyers working overtime to try to sabotage the grant-maintained schools. It tried to introduce a new system, which it botched up, for the selection process for youngsters aged 11 who have applied to the grammar schools. It has spent a vast amount of money, estimated to be in excess of £1 million in terms of officers' time and other costs, trying to bamboozle the Local Government Commission about local government reform. As for its scatter-gun approach to the roads programme, the result has been a disgraceful shambles. Many major road projects have seized up, notably in the Medway towns.
So on the charge of incompetence, yes, the council is guilty. But what about malice? I would say that it is certainly guilty of this, too. The Conservative opposition on Kent county council proposed a detailed budget for the coming year, which demonstrated better value for money and would have resulted in a council tax increase


restricted to the rate of inflation at 2.9 per cent., but what did the Labour and Liberal-Democrat councillors do? They voted it down.
It is also extremely interesting to look at what has happened to the district and borough councils of Kent. Sadly, none of them is under Conservative control. Last year, far too many voters did not go along to vote—for reasons that we do not need to discuss now—and thus saddled themselves with Labour and Liberal Democrat councils. The Opposition spokesman has said that we should look at Labour in government. Indeed, let us look at it. Let us look at three councils—Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, and Ashford—which had been Conservative since time immemorial. Thanks to the election last year, they are now under Labour and Liberal Democrat coalitions. What did those great political party councillors do? They threw off management controls and had bright spending ideas. And what has been the result? The bills going out to the residents of those three districts have gone up. In Ashford, they have increased by 12.4 per cent.; in Tonbridge and Malting, they have increased by 24.8 per cent.; and in Sevenoaks, the district precept levied by the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties has increased by no less than 89 per cent. So much for Labour and Liberal Democrat control. Perhaps the electors of those boroughs will make sure that they vote next time. In those boroughs there is new Blairite co-operation between Labour and Liberal Democrats. What happens when one or other of those parties runs a council alone? Gillingham has been in the hands of the Liberal Democrats for some years. Its council tax increase is 8.7 per cent. this year.
As this is a Labour debate, however, let us consider Labour councils. Dartford went Labour last year. What thanks did the poor council tax payers get? They got an increase of 15 per cent. in the levy from the borough council. Rochester went Labour in 1991. Under the Conservatives, the city council subsidised the greater part of the Kent county council precept and levied the lowest shire district council tax in England. It was able to do so because of careful Conservative husbandry of the finances and the management of capital funds. Now it has been under Labour control for five years, and what has happened? Labour has blown the funds to such an extent that this year there is no subsidy to Kent county council and the people of the city of Rochester are feeling the full weight of the county level like the rest of us. And where is the highest council tax in Kent? It is in Labour Thanet.
What of my borough of Gravesham? This year, our council tax increased by a modest 2.9 per cent.—that is only £40,000 from the electorate—but why was that increase levied when the Labour borough council proposes to put £697,000 into reserves, taking those reserves to £4 million? Why increase the load on the backs of my constituents? The Conservative group on the council recommended no increase, but the Labour party voted it down. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that only a few years ago, when Gravesham borough council was Conservative, it had the third lowest council tax among the shire districts—after Rochester city, which was then Conservative, and Wellingborough, which due to the wisdom of its residents is still controlled by the Conservatives with their independent allies.
I hope that the good management of councils in Kent by the Conservatives for many decades will not fade too fast before we regain control of those councils. The people of Kent should take as a warning the record of councils

that have had Labour control in the long term. They must weigh up the facts for themselves. The highest council tax in Kent—currently in Labour Thanet—is £640 at band D. That council has only just become Labour-controlled. The people of Kent should compare that with the band D council tax of Labour Liverpool at £1,006, or of Labour North Lincolnshire, which is not dissimilar to some of the Kent districts, at £887. Of the 20 councils with the highest council tax, 18 are Labour; of the eight with the lowest council tax, even with the small number of Conservative councils today, six are Conservative while the other two are the City of London and the Isles of Scilly, which do not carry out politics locally.
The lesson for the people of Kent is clear: Labour councils cost you more.

Mr. Ken Purchase: Disappointingly, part of the debate has been marked by an attack on public servants in local government. It is surprising to hear former leaders of local authorities going to town about slush funds. Earlier, we heard of a county which allegedly had very high reserves that were referred to as a "slush fund". That council, which I understand is a coalition of interests, has nothing to fear and nothing to hide when compared with the Conservative sleaze that we more properly associate with the term "slush fund". It is more appropriate for Conservative Members to apply that term to themselves than to any other party in the House.
I wish to defend people who have worked for a long time in local government. I hear talk, not about council members, but about some professional officers who have served in local authorities for many years. They certainly are professional officers, no matter how much Conservative Members shake their heads. Those officers are properly qualified in their professions and they give a proper, good, efficient and effective service to their communities.
The House has heard complaints that rate increases vary from district to district, from borough to borough and from county to county. Of course they do: that is local government reflecting the needs of each area. People have been blamed for voting for people other than Conservatives, but that is the nature of local democracy—words which do not frequently pass the lips of Conservative Members, and when they do they are usually employed as marks of hypocrisy and cant.
It is unfortunate that we have had to listen to an attack on the integrity of local government which, by and large, has a proud record of serving the interests of its communities. In so doing it will almost certainly continue, as long as it is allowed, to have rate demands set at different levels for different purposes for different services serving different communities. And long may those arrangements continue, for they are entirely admirable.
Many of us who served in local government remember when an uptight grocer's daughter stamped her foot and decided to put an end to the rating system. She charged several of her Ministers to find ways in which the powers of local government and hence its spending could be curbed. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) mentioned the methodology. The first method employed by the Government was simple, straightforward and crude: it was to ensure that


Labour-controlled authorities would be punished. The Deputy Prime Minister, who at that time was Secretary of State for the Environment, contrived a formula so complex in its application that no computer installation in western Europe could cope with the calculation: it had to be sent to Texas in the USA where the calculation was worked out authority by authority. As Robert Burns said,
O what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive.
I apologise to Burns if I did not quite get that right, but I am sure that hon. Members know exactly what I mean.
That exercise by the then Secretary of State for the Environment was followed by what was probably the greatest debacle in the history of local government: the poll tax. That was the uptight grocer girl's next attempt, and it was a total, miserable and utter failure. By golly, there was a price to be paid and it is still being paid. My hon. Friends have referred to the difficulty of collecting huge unpaid poll tax bills going back many years simply because people did not have the money to pay an outrageous tax which was levied on them to satisfy political incompetence on the back of political malevolence, for that is the only way in which it can be described.
Now we have a council tax system which relies on banding. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke of the awfulness of the present system and, of course, he is right. Eventually, the Conservatives may hit on a big idea for local government. They might think about calling it the rating system under which there is a rateable value for every property and those who can afford it will pay and those who cannot afford to do so will get help by way of a rebate. That would be a revolution. People would be grateful to get back to those happy, far-off days.
Under an exceedingly high gearing, 80 per cent. of local government finance is not collected by local government. That means that only 20 per cent. is collected, but in those far-off happy days we provided over 33 per cent. of locally funded schemes and paid far less for our services. My borough now has £30 million less to spend in real terms than it spent in those far-off happy days when there was a rating system and the method of disbursing central Government grant was fair and reasonable. Those are the differences.
In the early 1980s, when the late Sir Keith Joseph was Secretary of State for Education, my borough brought forward a plan to reduce school places. It is expensive to keep school places empty and we intended to reduce them to the level suggested by the then Department of Education. What happened? Sir Keith could not see his way clear to agree to our plan. We asked whether we could bring forward a modified plan. We were told that we could, but that we would have to go through exactly the same procedure to come to the table with the Secretary of State with a plan. We have been implored to reduce places in schools, but when authorities have come forward with viable plans which have not suited the Tories, they have been turned down—thus adding to the overall burden of local government expenditure.
My authority is a good example of what is happening now. This year, my authority has a growth figure of 1 per cent. in real terms in education, which seems to me to be

a considerable achievement; in fact, it is exemplary in my borough, considering that under a Conservative ideology it delegates 90 per cent. of the entire budget to schools. In that sense, my borough does everything that has been asked. However, over the years the cuts have been very hurtful—many teachers have had to leave the service by one route or another and the pupil-teacher ratio has increased.
My borough experiences severe deprivation; yet this year the social services budget has been cut by £250,000 in relation to services for the disabled—and many other cuts have been made in the social services area. The economic development function has been diminished in a borough with an unemployment rate well above average—there is up to 30 per cent. unemployment among young people in some areas. It is incumbent on the Government to recognise what is being done in local government, to recognise the varying conditions which exist and to fund their part of it properly.
Unfortunately, the council tax in Wolverhampton has increased by 15 per cent. this year—despite sending 90 per cent. down to schools and despite making major cuts in some of the services. We are a good example of having to pay more but getting less—that is what has been happening in Wolverhampton. It is a good authority, and it has been recognised as such for 30 years or more, under both Labour and Conservative control.
We have taken it on the chin in Wolverhampton when Labour has lost control of the council—we have recognised that the local population has said, "Labour, you are not doing the job that we want you to do", and it has voted us out and put in Conservatives—often in coalition with the Liberals, which is a bit of a change-around. However, they have then voted Labour back in again.
Hon. Members must accept that local democracy is an important and cherished bloom among those who value local government, local democracy and all that it means to local populations. Local democracy can work when it is properly and reasonably funded, both from central Government resources and from its own resources.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Tonight the Labour party has referred to something that it thinks will wash with the electorate until the next election—that if only the formula could be got right, we could have more money to spend in our areas. I have listened to Labour Members and I am worried because I think that some of them actually believe it. It is not true and it does not mean anything. A number of Labour Members have said, "If the formula were different, there would be more to spend in my constituency and my council would have more". They forget that they would merely be robbing other councils—often Labour controlled—in a system which simply would not work.
If one wants more money for services—as, no doubt, the Labour party will pretend that it will provide—one has to increase the amount of money produced in taxation. What must be most worrying, certainly for my constituents and, indeed, for people throughout the country, is what the Labour party would do with the return to business rates. We all remember—certainly those of us who served in local government remember—that the Labour party in local government regarded business rates


as a mulch cow. Businesses did not have a vote, so Labour went through the process of consulting them and then ignored them. The result, certainly in London, was that people moved their businesses. They voted with their feet and moved out of Labour-controlled areas into Conservative-controlled areas.

Mr. Dobson: Balderdash!

Mr. Hughes: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to swear, using unparliamentary language to describe what I said, but I represented Croydon on the Greater London council until 10 years yesterday, and businesses were moving out of Lambeth and into Croydon to avoid Lambeth's business rates.
On top of that, there were spending promises from every Labour councillor one could name. Labour supporters in the unions demanded that compulsory competitive tendering be abolished, which meant that the cost of providing services would go up. There was the cost of a return to regional authorities and those who hold the blank cheques of nods and winks from the Labour party, demanding that more money be spent on every service that one could name.
In conclusion—I have only two minutes to speak in the debate if, unlike some hon. Members, I am to stick to the agreement that I made—if the Labour party were to hold to what it promises the people every time it opens its mouth, it would have to increase taxes both locally and nationally. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras says that he never listens to experts: anyone who has ever listened to his speeches will know what he means and will not be at all surprised.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: Conservative Members have tried to suggest that people will pay more and get less. People do pay more and get less under the Conservative Government. The Government have a history, certainly since the previous election, of extracting from the taxpayer more and more in tax. This month, with the increase in council tax, people across Britain will face their 23zrd Tory tax hike. Council tax bills will go up. Services will be cut. Taxpayers will pay more but get less. Ordinary families throughout the land are paying the price of Tory economic mismanagement and incompetence.
As if it was not bad enough that the Government have introduced 22 new taxes since 1992, costing the typical family an extra £670 a year, residents will now face hefty increases in their council tax bills.

Sir Paul Beresford: By how much will Labour load central taxpayers, to give to local government?

Ms Armstrong: I shall deal with the Minister's sedentary intervention in a moment.
Government figures produced during the Budget, and subsequent statements from civil servants and politicians, show that the Government have a clear policy of forcing the council tax up, not just this year, but next year and the year after that. Council tax payers will have to fork out an extra £3.5 billion over the next three years—equivalent to almost 2p on the basic rate of income tax.

Since the general election, we have experienced three years of Tory-driven national tax increases, which are to be followed by three years of Tory-planned local tax increases.
During the previous election, unsurprisingly, so busy were they scaremongering about what a Labour Government would do, that Tory politicians appeared to forget—I am always generous in my interpretation of history—to tell the electorate that under a John Major Government taxes would go up and up. In fact, Tory politicians appear to have got so muddled that they told the electorate that taxes would not go up. The 1992 Conservative party manifesto, for example, stated clearly:
We will maintain mortgage tax relief'.
What happened? The Conservatives cut mortgage tax relief two years running.
On 28 January 1992, the Prime Minister told the Leader of the Opposition in the House:
So that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt, I tell him that I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]
In 1993, what did the Conservatives do? They raised the rate of national insurance contributions from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent.
On 27 March 1992, John Major told the electorate:
I have made it clear, we have no plans"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady has forgotten the convention that hon. Members do not use names, but use only titles.

Ms Armstrong: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister—even better—told the electorate:
I have made it clear, we have no plans and indeed no need to extend the scope of VAT".
What did the Conservatives do? In the very first Budget following that election, the Government extended VAT to home energy and fuel. Now, no more than 12 months away from a general election, Ministers are scurrying around trying to pretend that they really have not been putting up taxes—oh no. The problem is that public finances are in such a mess that their options were restricted. I wonder who got the public finances into such a mess.
Accordingly, the Government resorted to their twin magic tricks. The first is the sleight-of-hand trick: having put up taxes every year, they are trying to claim maximum credit for a 1p cut in income tax while denying responsibility for grabbing the money back by forcing council taxes up. The second trick is entitled "pass the buck", and involves central Government cutting support for local government and then blaming councils for the fact that they have had to raise the council tax to pay for essential services.
The problem that the Government and Conservative Members face is that the electorate are becoming tired of these old Tory tricks. They can see through them; they know what is going on, and where the blame truly lies. What the electorate want is honesty. They do not expect miracles, but they do not expect tricks either. They want


us to be honest and straight with them. Unfortunately, they have not had such treatment from the Government, and they have not had it from some Tory councils either.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: I have already given way to other hon. Members, and I want to ensure that the Minister has time to reply.
I also want to respond to what the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) had to say. I thought it very brave of him to defend Brent council this evening. The House has not just heard and considered Westminster's problems in past weeks; there is also the real problem in Brent. Before the elections in May 1994, Brent electors were told that the Tories were committed to cutting the council tax. The right hon. Gentleman is right: they did cut it. However, they appeared to be suffering from amnesia when it came to telling the electorate, or even the council, where the necessary funds were to be found.
A Conservative Political Centre pamphlet launched this weekend, co-written by—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am trying to listen to the sedentary interventions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the House knows my views on sedentary interruptions. I am afraid that they apply to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Ms Armstrong: The pamphlet tells us:
Brent Conservatives … were even in a position to tell voters the amount by which taxes would be cut by the Conservatives in their first year of office; clearly this did a great deal to help them win the election.
So we have that model of Tory best practice.
The electorate, however, were not told of the gaping hole in the council's finances or that the cut had to be financed through a quick sale of Alperton lane depot to Onyx, a deal that was conditional on the company being given the profit-making council contract to manage trade waste collection and skip services. The deal was never even reported to a council committee. It cost taxpayers £1 million. The truth has only now come out and been reported to the district auditor. That deal, which appears to be ultra vires, went ahead because Conservative councillors were more interested in cutting the council tax than in protecting the public interest and probity in local government.
This year, the Tory budget in Brent is again in a shambles. The council was clear that the minimum prudent reserves were about £2.5 million. All parties in Brent proposed budgets that set aside £2.5 million in reserves, but, unlike Labour and the Liberals, whose budgets were driven by a commitment to quality, efficient services and a sustainable public financial regime, the Tories were more obsessed with cutting the council tax and so they misled the council and council tax payers.
In the past couple of days, therefore, those Tories have had to announce that they forgot to include expenditure of £1.1 million for statutory special education and for the funding for recycling initiatives, so, surprise surprise,

once the budget had been agreed, the Tories admitted the oversight and had to raise those balances by £1 million. We shall ensure that the auditor has a chance to say something about that.
It is of course possible to cut budgets if councillors are not going to take any notice of the district auditor and of probity. I know the right hon. Member for Brent, North well and that, above all, he expects and demands honesty, so I hope that he will ask his councillors some questions about how they managed to cut the council tax last year and this year.
Other authorities have been trumpeted today. We have heard about Wandsworth council. We seem to have forgotten that, this year, it issued a press release bemoaning the end of the bonanza last year, when 35 per cent. of all transitional relief money went to one council: Wandsworth. Because this year the Government wanted the level in Brent to be lower than in Wandsworth, they removed the bonanza and changed the basis of the arrangements. Wandsworth councillors are not happy.
The Government have a responsibility to protect the public interest, but instead they collude with councillors in Brent who want to avoid the honest budget process. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has already read the letter which, following the 1994 budget, Brent council's leader wrote to officers in the Department of the Environment—I trust political officers.
The activities in Brent contrast sharply with those in many other authorities, where councillors are working hard properly to meet aims and aspirations.

Mr. Gummer: It is well run.

Ms Armstrong: I am amazed that the Secretary of State dares say that it is well run. I have already given the figure on the cases in Brent that have been proved by the ombudsman, which number 43—I got the number wrong earlier. The nearest other London council had 17 cases. The ombudsman does not, therefore, seem to agree with the Secretary of State.
Time and again, the Tory Government are hitting taxpayers where it hurts. In the same way as it was not an accident that there were tax cuts before the previous general election and huge tax rises after that election, it is not an accident that, in the year before the next general election, income tax is cut by 1p and the Government are grabbing the money back through the council tax.
Several of my hon. Friends pointed out the problems with the way in which the Government calculate the standard spending assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has long given great service by raising the matter year after year. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) mentioned the importance of what is happening in Wales today, when Wales is having new authorities forced on it because of the Government's gerrymandering.
Authorities across the country are desperately trying to provide fire services and other services to meet the aspirations of local people, but are having to cut those services while increasing the money that they raise.
Despite the Secretary of State's attempts to pass the buck on taxation, the truth is clear from the Department of the Environment's annual report, which states:


This reflects the Government's view that council tax payers should contribute a slightly increased proportion of the costs of local government".
That is what it is about—because the Government cannot manage their finances, they are putting the onus on council tax payers.
It is a tribute to the hard work and efficiency of local government—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), continues to tries to laud the 13 councils that the Tories still run. Why are there only 13 of them? It is because of democracy. The Government hate the fact that democracy works.
Tribute must be paid to the hard-working councillors for having managed to keep the council tax increase below the 8 per cent. that the Tories expected. The Government said that the increase would be 8 per cent., but the average increase is lower. Instead of indulging in complacent attacks on local government, it is time that the Government admitted the truth which, I know, is hard for them. The truth is that local people are having to pay more but get less because of the Government's incompetence and mismanagement.
The people will know what to do when they experience the 23rd tax increase since 1992. They will know how to vote. I look forward to seeing the Government suffer the results of what the electorate say.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We thank the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) for her cure for insomnia. The positive approach to local government was most appropriately set out by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he began the Government's response to the motion. He drove home the differences between Labour and Conservative councils in practice and between what Labour says and what Labour does. That point was well echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the opportunity to ensure that this debate on local government is fully rounded and includes Wales and England. I intend to make proper mention of Wales shortly.
This is an Opposition debate, but what a lacklustre, uninspiring performance we saw from Opposition Members, despite the fact that it was their choice of subject. The only enlivenment provided by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) came when he displayed his giggle factor. He also displayed an almost maniacal twitch as he looked around desperately for supporters on the Benches behind him. The hon. Gentleman really knows how to pack them in—at the height of his oratory, he had nine Back Benchers to support him. It is no wonder, as he had nothing new to offer and there was no substance to his speech, which was merely a collection of incoherent points. In addition, his figures did not add up. Even he admitted that he refuses to listen to experts—I have to say that that came over very clearly. We know that he has maintained his amateur status, or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that,

along with the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), he has displayed that the Labour party is unfit to govern.
The hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), in line with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, called for more spending and more accountability. The hon. Member for Newbury wanted local income tax. I can imagine how that would be welcomed. None of them would quantify what he had in mind or put figures on the bills that would be presented. Perversely, they complained that the Government should give more to local government, but again, they would not quantify it. I must ask how such demands square with the abolition of capping and the provision of greater accountability. They simply cannot make up their minds.
Over and over, it came across this evening that new Labour equals new taxation. It would impose a minimum wage. That would have to be paid for. It would abolish compulsory competitive tendering. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dared to offer the advice in The Guardian that such a plan would be a dangerous capitulation to the unions, and yet another expert was brushed aside by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Labour would want to put business taxes under local-authority control. I defy the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) to come up with any credible authority in the business world which would prefer to return to what was previously inflicted on it.
All that is as well as abolishing capping. It is incredible to think of the total that would be created as a result. I honestly believe that, in their heart of hearts, the last thing that Labour Members want the Government to do is abolish capping and let their Labour supporters loose in local government. Have they ever stopped to think about the effect? That point was well brought home by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. It brings us back to the Labour party saying one thing and doing another. It is proof of the prophecy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quoted earlier. The Leader of the Opposition said in The Spectator:
I don't think the character of any party becomes clear until you're in power.
It is exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said when he referred to the way in which his Labour-controlled county council has not passed on all the money that it has been given for education to the schools; it is saying one thing, doing another.
New Labour is certainly the party of new taxation. If the list that I have read out is not enough, I remind the House about the tartan tax that Labour would impose in Scotland and the taffia tax that it would impose in Wales to pay the price of a Welsh Assembly that would be brought in without giving the people of Wales any opportunity to comment on it.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: I fear that time is too short.
As has been mentioned, 1 April should be a great day for local government in Wales. We have had fireworks to celebrate the end of such unloved councils as South


Glamorgan. Today is the completion of a process that was begun in 1974. We have ended the two-tier system and the confusion apparent in so many people's minds about which council did what. Such confusion certainly existed among the councils themselves.
Now we have 22 new unitary authorities in Wales. They are much more closer to the people whom they are meant to serve. What will those new councils do? The people of Wales will rush to say that clearly they must do better than their predecessors.

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Jones: I am afraid that time is too short. [HON.MEMBERS: "Go on."]

Mr. Jones: Very well.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister will be very well aware that among the new authorities assuming power in Wales today there is a massive variation in increases in council tax. His own council of Cardiff, Rhondda, Cynon, Taff, and Gwynedd have increased their council tax by up to 25 per cent., whereas neighbouring authorities, carrying on the policies that they inherited from their predecessors, have needed only to increase their council tax by 3 or 4 per cent. Will he give an undertaking that during the year the Welsh Office will consider the distribution of grants in order to find the anomalies that have led to today's position so that it can be put right for next year?

Mr. Jones: We shall certainly look at the SSAs for Wales, beginning with community care and education. The hon. Gentleman would have to agree that in Wales we have been caned this year by the level of council tax increases. There is a simple explanation why: there are no elections in Wales this year. We had elections in every council last year, and there were far lower increases, but now the accountability has been removed.
My constituents would name education and community care as obvious priorities for spending. However, we were reminded again recently by the Audit Commission of the bad reputation of South Glamorgan council. It is the second lowest county council in England and Wales for spending on education. It does not have the excuse that it is a low-spending authority because we know from the Audit Commission that it is the sixth highest spender in England and Wales. We have excellent schools across Cardiff; I think of Whitchurch, Llanishen and Cardiff high. What they achieve is despite the Labour-controlled education authority and not because of it. Labour's meanness comes through so clearly in South Glamorgan, in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It has been proved over and again that education is not safe in the hands of the Labour party.
Opposition Members have made it clear that they think that the level of resources for local government spending should be increased. It should be a simple matter for them to tell us by how much, but they do not. We should keep on asking the questions. I ask these questions at every available opportunity, but it is just as well that I am a patient man because I do not receive answers. I have not

given up hope of receiving an answer and I shall give way now to the hon. Member for North-West Durham if she wants to give me one.
If we are to believe that local authorities are unable to manage effectively within the resources available to them, what are we to make of an article in the Western Mail on 19 March? I will enlighten hon. Members who may not have had an opportunity to read the article. It was headlined, "Local authorities in last spending spree" and it went on to report:
The year of the big spend is almost at an end but local authority treasurers are still scouring town hall coffers. Many councils in Wales beefed up their spending programmes before they are abolished".
One local authority is reported to have found an extra £2.6 million in the past 12 months and the treasurer is quoted as saying:
This year will be remembered as the year of the great spend. My creative accounting abilities and pulling out of the finance hat have been pushed to the limit.
Such reports give no credence to the laments of Opposition Members. In my view, it would have been much better for those authorities to contain their enthusiasm for breakneck spending and to provide their successor authorities with a sensible level of reserves.
Central Government support for local government spending in England and Wales for 1996–97 has increased by about 2.8 per cent. It has certainly not been cut as some reports suggest. It accounts for about 80 per cent. of English and Welsh total standard spending. Local government in both England and Wales argue that central Government support represents too high a proportion of spending, and that it fetters their discretion and diminishes local accountability. That can be remedied only by increasing the amount that local authorities can raise locally through the council tax.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is concerned about Theatr Clwyd. The problems of Theatr Clwyd have not been caused by local government reorganisation; the decision was taken by Flintshire county council. It has the spending power, but it has chosen not to put money into the theatre. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been most concerned about the theatre's future so we have offered £1.3 million to write off its debts. I must tell the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that the offer is conditional on a solution being found for the long-term future. We do not want Flintshire to create the problem each year. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the outcome because we received a reply from Flintshire county council only last Friday. The reply is being studied urgently and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is my hope that, as he wants, we shall reach a conclusion that secures the theatre's future.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister agree that the letter written to the Secretary of State for Wales by the leader of Flintshire county council gives the Minister the way forward so that we can keep open this excellent regional theatre?

Mr. Jones: All I can say tonight is that I hope that it does.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy were concerned about the new fire authorities. They should know that the financing of the new fire authorities has essentially not changed. It is


the responsibility of each unitary authority to set a budget, including provision for the fire service, in accordance with the resources available to it and its own assessment of needs and priorities. All the new fire authorities in Wales will spend more in the coming year than they did last year. The increases range from 2.2 per cent. for north Wales and 5.3 per cent. for south Wales to 10.5 for mid and west Wales. I have noted what hon. Members have said about a meeting with the North Wales fire authority, and I will ensure that the point is conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
In conclusion, we have had a mean and whingeing debate from the Opposition this evening. Local government has the resources and the opportunities, and we certainly have the way forward in Wales with the new reorganised councils that are closer to the people they are meant to serve. That is the way forward, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 287.

Division No. 91]
[21.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coffey, Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cohen, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Connarty, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cummings, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Harry
Dafis, Cynog


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Alistair


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John



Benton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Don


Berry, Roger
Dobson, Frank


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Boateng, Paul
Dowd, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Etherington, Bill


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Burden, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Cann, Jamie
Galloway, George


Chidgey, David
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
George, Bruce


Church, Judith
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mildred


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)





Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hain, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hall, Mike
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Henderson, Doug
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, Bill


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hodge, Margaret
Pendry, Tom


Hoey, Kate
Pickthall, Colin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pike, Peter L


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Purchase, Ken


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Illsley, Eric
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rogers, Allan


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rooney, Terry


Jamieson, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Clare


Keen, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Smith, Chris (lsl'ton S & F'sbury)


Khabra, Piara S
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Soley, Clive


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Spearing, Nigel


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Spellar, John


Litherland, Robert
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Livingstone, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steinberg, Gerry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stevenson, George


Loyden, Eddie
Stott, Roger


Lynne, Ms Liz
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McAllion, John
Straw, Jack


McAvoy, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McFall, John
Timms, Stephen


McKelvey, William
Tipping, Paddy


Mackinlay, Andrew
Touhig, Don


McLeish, Henry
Trickett, Jon


McMaster, Gordon
Turner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Tyler, Paul


McWilliam, John
Vaz, Keith


Madden, Max
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Maddock, Diana
Walley, Joan


Mahon, Alice
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mandelson, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Watson, Mike


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Meale, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Michael, Alun
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wray, Jimmy


Milburn, Alan
Wright, Dr Tony


Miller, Andrew
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)







Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Greg Pope and



Mr. Eric Martlew.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter(East Surrrey)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Faber, David


Bates, Michael
Fabricant, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bendall, Vivian
Fishburn, Dudley


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Body, Sir Richard
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Booth, Hartley
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fry, Sir peter


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Sir Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Browning, Mrs Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Budgen, Nicholas
Gorst, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, Rt Hon William


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, Sir John


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawksley, Warren


Coe, Sebastian
Hawksley, Warren


Colvin, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Congdon, David
Heald, Oliver


Conway, Derek
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Coombs, Anthonoy (Wyre For'st)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hendry, Charles


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Couchman, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew



Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas





Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Torn
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir Michael


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Mackay, Andrew
Sumberg, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sweeney, Walter


Mcloughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Petr


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Thomason, Roy


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Townend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, RT Hon Sir Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilkinson, John


Pawsey, James
Willetts, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilshire, David


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, David (Waveney)
Yeo, Tim


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Powell, William (Corby)



Rathbone, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the rigorous approach it is taking towards all public expenditure, including that of local government; commends the clarity of their approach towards taxation and the funding of local services; and urges local authorities to make the most efficient use of the resources available.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES

That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

LIAISON

Ordered,
That Mr. Greville Janner be discharged from the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Conway.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Terry Dicks be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr. John Marshall be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

Roots and Shoots

Miss Kate Hoey: I have great pleasure in presenting a petition from more than 2,000 people living in the Kennington area, among whom are some hon. Members. It supports a valuable project called Roots and Shoots. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have an opportunity to visit this valuable scheme which provides work skills and training in horticultural products to disadvantaged young people in Lambeth. It should be adequately funded so that it can continue. People who know the value of the scheme have signed the petition. They have visited the scheme, bought the plants and seen what is happening there. I hope that the Minister responsible will study the petition carefully and do something to ensure that this valuable scheme does not have to fold. The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House asks that the Secretary of State for Education and employment intervenes to save 'Roots and Shoots'.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".

To lie upon the Table.

Drought (Yorkshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I asked for this debate because of my disgust at the wriggling and constant evasion on the part of the Government and, in particular, of the regulator, in respect of the chaos that Yorkshire people suffered last year. As the public inquiry in Leeds town hall, funded by Yorkshire Water and headed by Professor Uff, provides more and more details of the inadequacies—which go back not months but years—I predict that the Government's explanation will change. Instead of saying that it had been an exceptional, once-in-500 years summer and that the company did all that it could, they will say that it is a case of one bad company and that now that its senior executives and chairman have gone, everything will be all right. I also predict that the Government will fail even to address the flaws in the regulatory system that allowed the chaos to happen.
The Government's golden rule is that nothing, but nothing, must be seen to be wrong with water privatisation. That must be stated and restated by Government and regulator alike but never subjected to public scrutiny. I suggest that even today's announcement about competition was more a diversion from the public scrutiny of the management of the water industry that people want than anything new about how the industry will be managed in future. What other reason is there for the refusal of the Department of the Environment and the regulator to attend or give evidence in public to the inquiry in Leeds? Were they not also involved during last year's crisis? Did not the Secretary of State meet the company's chairman, Gordon Jones? Did not Ian Byatt write letters of complaint to the company? Why should those meetings and that correspondence be kept secret when everything else is in the public domain?
The public inquiry has been useful, in particular because it has offered the chance to the other regulator, the National Rivers Authority, to clarify many of the long-term issues relating to water resource management in Yorkshire without getting hung up on the "we must defend privatisation" charade. Certain factors have stood out, including the explanation that water for drinking in Yorkshire and anywhere else can be collected for treatment purposes from three sources: reservoirs, bore holes and rivers. Reservoirs are the cheapest source because water flows down hill and is collected in the uplands, where it is kept relatively pure. Bore holes are the next most expensive option because of the pumping costs, and rivers are the most expensive because the water needs to be pumped and cleaned up more to make it safe to drink.
Last March, Yorkshire Water looked at the beautiful reservoirs of the Pennines brimming over after one of the wettest winters in history and saw not water, but a year of bumper profits. Instead of conserving the good wine till last, it gobbled it all up month after month through the summer. It was not until the middle of August, the 18th to be precise, that Yorkshire Water looked to increase its take from rivers, despite persistent NRA warnings.
The second fact to come out of the inquiry is that the company was warned way back in 1991 that the grid system was not sufficient to move water around the county. Indeed, since 1989, drought restrictions have been imposed throughout the county in every single year.
The third fact to come out of the inquiry is that the need for investment to reduce leakage was identified four years ago, but no action was taken. According to the minutes of a meeting of the Ofwat Yorkshire customer service committee, the director general visited Yorkshire on 8 April 1992 to discuss in particular Ofwat's concern about the leakage control policy and the lack of investment to combat those leaks. There is nothing new about leaks.
The truth is that, last year, there was no drought in the real sense of the word in Yorkshire. A drought occurs when there is year on year of low rainfall—more like in 1976, or, potentially, this year—and when stocks are low after a number of dry winters and summers. In 1976, people displayed a community spirit to save on external use and garden watering.
Yorkshire people are not blind, and they can detect greed and waste. They saw the brimming reservoirs in March, and fished in them. Those reservoirs were full of public water collected from rain in public ownership. They saw and reported leaking pipes and discovered that it took at least two weeks for the company to take action. They read about the 100 million gallons of water leaking daily from company pipes. With one voice—chambers of commerce, Tory and Labour Members of Parliament, local authorities, rich and poor alike and public health bodies—they turned on the company when they were threatened with standpipes, rota cuts, business relocation and constant appeals to restrict their use of water for washing and in the garden. They said, "No. This is your problem. We, the customers, will not accept the blame." Indeed, usage started to go up every time a Yorkshire Water boss issued another television appeal.
Tonight, I want to take the issue further. The problem was not trivial, but touches the very heart of public health. People now want to know why the Government allowed that irresponsible company simultaneously to retain its senior management, return record profits and increase prices by nearly 6 per cent. while overseeing a crisis that could have caused major outbreaks of dysentery, environmental devastation and even mass evacuation.
The public want to know what the so-called independent regulator's role was in all this. He showed no concern about water resources last year until 21 August, when he issued a press release calling for
the companies to improve the way they manage the demand for water"—
not the way they manage water, but the way they manage the demand for water. He admitted:
where companies are short of water is it likely that leakage control should be an important part of its strategy, … In other areas, however, it will not be cost effective. These are decisions for the company to make. Although Ofwat monitors companies' leakage rates, its prime concern is with the service that customers get.
That is not true. If Ofwat's prime concern was for customers, we would have seen action years ago to set targets on leakage. Instead, Ofwat's prime concern is with the financial well-being of the water undertakers. In the words of the Department of the Environment, Ian Byatt is

the independent economic regulator of the Water Industry in England and Wales.
It is to the director general that companies deliver their annual leakage returns and their five-year investment plans. It is the director general who says whether companies can sell off their land or reservoirs. It is he who receives their capital asset management reports.
Are all these reports and information simply a library exercise? No, they are not even that, because the information is kept behind closed doors and in locked cupboards and is not open to the public.
When investment proposals are inadequate, does the director general ever intervene? At the price review in 1994, he will have known that Yorkshire Water's investment in water distribution was dropping 26 per cent. from 1992 to 1993—a shortfall of £100 million, which just happens to be the sum being rushed through in six months to improve the grid because of the crisis.
What action did the regulator take at the time of the price review? What happens when investments have been promised and agreed but are not delivered? The inquiry heard last week from the Sewer Renovation Federation. I quote from the evidence of Paul Hayward:
the total infrastructure renewals
underspend
for all … private water companies amounted to £l398 million
by March 1995,
of which Yorkshire Water's share was £136 million".
That £136 million represents money collected from customers for the express purpose of maintaining the water and sewerage infrastructure, but not spent.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does the hon. Lady agree that if Yorkshire Water had had first-class management last year, we would not have had a crisis because there was not a drought? There was water in many areas in Yorkshire, which Yorkshire Water said it would take five years to put pipelines in to transport. If we had had a first-class regulator who was doing his job properly, he would have urged them on to manage the company better, to ensure that leakages were reduced and that people in Yorkshire received the service for which they pay.

Mrs. Jackson: What the hon. Lady says endorses the concern and anger that has been felt by public representatives of all political views in Yorkshire about the poor management last year.
I would make two points in response. First, there were some extraordinary management decisions. In the middle of the crisis, when morale was at rock bottom, Yorkshire Water management continued the process of contracting out—outsourcing. On 4 August, in the middle of the crisis, it held a meeting with workers to say that the jobs of workers in leakage control teams in South Yorkshire were on the line. Is that not an extraordinary management decision, when everyone needs to join in and do what they can to tackle leakage? Yes, there were some extraordinary management decisions, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that the actions could have been taken before last year and then we should not have had the problem that we had last year.
Secondly, what is the point of the regulator having powers to monitor the service and financial indicators if he is either unwilling or unable to take action to ensure


that companies keep to their plans? He would say that in mid-November, which was right at the end of the crisis—it had even started to rain—he did decide to act. He was spurred on by the imminent public inquiry into the emergency drought order seeking permission to impose rota cuts.
The regulator wrote to Yorkshire Water stating that he intended to investigate its performance—in private. The only record that we have of that letter was leaked to The Times and he still will not make public the letter or what he was particularly concerned about. We know from the one in The Times that he was particularly concerned that the plight of customers
raises serious questions about decisions taken by the company in the years leading up to this summer as well as the action or inaction in response to warning signs".
The regulator recognised that the problem went back some years and did not start just last summer. In the letter he announced that he was setting up a team which would report its findings in January. What team? I rang the regulator on Friday and I was told that it would not include any senior executives from the company, which is what had been said in the letter—if there were any of the old ones left—but that his team included just his own staff and appointed advisers. What have they been doing since 12 November and who are the consultant advisers? How much are they being paid and what are the inquiry's terms of reference? None of that information was forthcoming.
On 7 March, Mr. Horsman from the Mid-Yorkshire chamber of commerce received a letter from Mr. Byatt explaining that he would not attend the Leeds inquiry because his own inquiry was under way. In the letter, he said that the teams had been appointed and had started in January and that his inquiries would be completed in April. 1 wondered this morning if that was what the Secretary of State meant when he spoke about bringing competition into the water industry. As soon as one inquiry is set up, it has to compete with another.
Will there be a race to the finishing line? John Uff has given 30 April, but can Ian Byatt get there first? Is there a third report in preparation and completely under wraps? We must not forget Mr. Nixon, the Department of the Environment inspector from the Dewsbury public inquiry held on 12 to 14 November. His report was on the Secretary of State's desk by 24 November, but despite persistent questioning in the House, nobody saw it until 16 January when it was reluctantly placed in the regional office in Yorkshire and Humberside for anyone who was interested enough to go and get it. Even then, it came with a letter stating that the Secretary of State saw no useful purpose in going further into the questions that it raised because the application for the emergency drought order had been withdrawn. That two-day public inquiry was a waste of time.
We need answers from the Government about the part that they played in last year's crisis and in the period running up to it. What meetings took place between Ministers and Yorkshire Water throughout last year? What ultimatums were given and when by any Minister and especially by the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration whose bulging postbag on this issue must have been a great embarrassment to him? What pressure was brought to bear by Tory Members in Yorkshire's marginal constituencies who saw their chance of re-election draining away like the water

supply? What discussions have taken place between Ministers and the regulator about whether they should participate in the public inquiry?
I believe that neither Ministers nor Ian Byatt dare to face the public. The regulator will not make his letters and his actions public because they endorse his failure as a regulator. The problems were not of one summer—they are long standing—nor do they relate to one poor company. The Ministers and the regulator must answer in public how they will stop the rampant profiteering in this industry. It is for them to say what they will do to make regulation of this public service—a much better description than utility—work for customers, not for companies.
I wish Kevin Bond and his new team at Yorkshire Water well. He has started this job today. I am pleased that he comes from the environmental side of the industry, because he well understands the interface between the different elements of the industry: water, drainage and sewerage. I do not want this debate to add to the significant job that he has started today.
I believe that the Government have missed a huge opportunity over this two-week inquiry. By hiding from public scrutiny on the appalling record of events in Yorkshire, they have added one more episode to the catalogue of disasters from which they seek to evade all responsibility—from the Scott report, to the recent bovine spongiform encephalopathy scare, to the death of children for whom no intensive care beds can be found and to chaos in our prison system—the failure to deliver a proper water supply for the people of Yorkshire last year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The issue of water supply in Yorkshire is of concern to the public in Yorkshire and it will assist hon. Members if I outline a brief factual account of the background to this. Rainfall across the Yorkshire region between April and October 1995 was only 59 per cent. of the long-term average; rainfall in the west of Yorkshire, where Yorkshire Water's reservoirs are situated, was even lower, at between 46 per cent. and 52 per cent. of the long-term average; and approximately half the company's water resources are obtained from these reservoirs.
Rainfall continues to be disappointingly low. Following nine months of rainfall at or below 50 per cent. of long-term average for west Yorkshire, January was again 50 per cent. of average; February was just above average; and, so far in March, it is about 58 per cent. of average—with less than 50 per cent. of average in Calderdale and Kirklees.
In the autumn of 1995, Yorkshire Water drew up plans to secure water supplies through the winter of 1995 and the summer of 1996. These plans were set against the possibility of the winter being as dry as ever recorded and a repeat of the exceptional conditions last summer. The company has identified a possible daily shortfall of some 132 million litres.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am sure that the Minister recognises that the proposals to establish a better grid to move water around the county was in existence two years before the summer of last year.

Mr. Clappison: I am setting out the company's plans in response to those conditions that I have described. It


has devised 18 schemes capable of delivering in total an extra 137 million litres per day. These schemes involve the construction of over 100 km of large diameter pipework and seven associated pumping stations in two main phases. One phase is due for completion about now and the other by May. One of these pipelines will connect Eccup reservoir, north of Leeds, with Bradford, Calderdale, Wakefield and Kirklees. The other will run from Selby to Leeds, Wakefield, Huddersfield and Calderdale. The cost is some £100 million.
These schemes are also based on further drought orders and time-limited variations to existing abstraction licences on the rivers Derwent, Ure, Wharfe and Ouse. The Environment Agency is considering the licence variations. Drought order applications have been handled expeditiously by my Department. There are currently 11 drought orders extant in the Yorkshire Water area and one application is under consideration. Another drought order application, concerning the River Derwent, is still the subject of discussion between the company, the Environment Agency and English Nature in view of the particular environmental issues involved. My Department will proceed with its consideration when the company indicates that it is ready to proceed.
Even with the severe conditions considered in its recent planning, Yorkshire Water has expressed confidence that, with the new schemes in place, there will be no need for water tankering or water rationing in 1996. I hope that that is of interest to Yorkshire consumers. The company states, however, that it will be necessary to maintain a hosepipe ban.
The company is presently engaged in a £12 million pilot leakage reduction programme in west Yorkshire to find the most cost-effective long-term solution. This is in addition to the enhanced leakage control programme that the company ran throughout 1995. We note that the Environment Agency intends to agree economic targets for leakage reduction with Yorkshire Water within the next few months for Leeds, Bradford, Calderdale and Wakefield. The company has also recently announced environmental and engineering studies of the option of transferring water from the River Tees, which is supported in part by the Kielder reservoir, into Yorkshire. That is part of its medium to long-term water resource planning.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clappison: Briefly.

Mrs. Jackson: In the light of today's announcement, will the Minister confirm that the transfer of water from Kielder reservoir to Yorkshire can operate whether or not the rules that were introduced today are in place?

Mr. Clappison: This is part of the company's long-term planning. I hope that I have set out clearly for the hon. Lady the short and medium-term measures that it is taking against a background of assumptions about the situation this year.
On Government monitoring, since last September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned a series of reports from the National Rivers Authority on the developing water resources situation throughout

England and Wales. The third report considered the position as at 31 January 1996 and again drew attention to the difficult situation in west Yorkshire. I can assure the hon. Lady that they certainly have taken an interest in what is taking place in Yorkshire. A fourth report, which will be published in late April by the Environment Agency, will consider the situation as at 31 March and the contingency arrangements to maintain supplies in the event of a dry summer.
Ministers and senior officials have kept in close contact with the management of Yorkshire Water throughout the drought, from the early part of July 1995, when it became clear that there might be a problem. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is meeting the chairman of Yorkshire Water tomorrow to hear from him the very latest position.
In common with all water companies, Yorkshire Water has a statutory duty to maintain water supplies, and we expect it to take all measures necessary to do that.
The hon. Lady referred to the independent commission of inquiry into water supply, which was announced at the beginning of February 1996. It is a private inquiry, commissioned and funded by Yorkshire Water. The commission's chairman, Professor John Uff, has publicly stated the complete independence of the inquiry and that Yorkshire Water is no more than one interested party in the proceedings. Yorkshire Water has stated that it will consider the inquiry's report, when it is published, to determine how it should influence the company's planning for water supply in the future.
My Department has made plain our willingness to help guide the inquiry to published information that may be relevant to its deliberations, but we have not received an invitation to submit evidence. Professor Uff has indicated that he is fully content with that position. Contrary to recent press reports, we understand that no criticism of the Department has been made in the inquiry sessions. I understand that the inquiry sessions will conclude this week.
The Director General of the Office of Water Services decided in November 1995 to carry out his own inquiry into various aspects of Yorkshire Water's performance of its statutory functions, including those relating to water supply. He has powers of enforcement that may be exercised as appropriate following his own investigations. The director general therefore considers that it would not be right for him to be seen to participate in an inquiry commissioned by the company while his own investigations continue. He has written to the inquiry chairman with this explanation of his position in relation to the inquiry. We are aware of the criticisms of Yorkshire Water's actions made by the NRA in its evidence to the independent inquiry. It will now be for the Environment Agency, irrespective of the outcome of the independent inquiry, to make use of statutory powers as it thinks fit to remedy any deficiencies. We note that the Environment Agency may seek to enter into a formal agreement with Yorkshire Water under section 20 of the Water Resources Act 1991 concerning the company's management of the Yorkshire grid. Such an arrangement would have to be lodged with the Secretary of State and would be enforceable by him. We shall await receipt of such agreements as and when they are developed.
As the hon. Lady is well aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 1 September 1995 a review of water resources and supply arrangements in


England and Wales as a whole in the longer term. This is being conducted with the Office of Water Services, the Environment Agency, the water industry and others. A report on the outcome can be expected within the next four months. The outcome of the independent inquiry into water supply in Yorkshire is a matter for the company that commissioned it, and its shareholders and customers. We shall study its findings with interest in relation to our own work.
As the hon. Lady said, we issued a consultation paper today on extending competition and customer choice in water and sewerage services. It is an evolutionary approach, beginning with large users. We hope that, in

the long term, it may be possible to extend the benefits of competition to the majority of water customers, both in Yorkshire and elsewhere.
It must be accepted that rainfall in Yorkshire has been exceptionally low, and that no amount of rhetoric or hindsight can alter the basic truth that the provision of water supplies depends fundamentally on rainfall. What matters now is that action is taken to secure supplies for the future in the event of further exceptional conditions. Normal supplies have been maintained so far, and it is important that that should remain the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.